It is not just me. Other analysts and journalists claim that what Sun is trying to achieve with their lawsuit against Microsoft is too much, and in places does not make sense at all. In this editorial, I discuss Sun’s lawsuit point by point, and evaluate how sensible (or not) it is.Sun filed 12 claims against Microsoft, including illegal maintenance of monopoly, attempted monopolization of the browser market, tying of Internet Explorer to Windows, tying Windows to Microsoft server software, tying Web server software to server operating systems, tying Microsoft’s .Net framework to the Windows desktop and server operating systems, monopolization of the office productivity software market, violation of the Cartwright Act, which is California’s version of the Sherman Antitrust Act, unfair competition, and copyright infringement. The sought damages could cost Microsoft more than $1 billion. But let’s break down the points, one by one.
Illegal maintenance of monopoly
I agree with this point. There are many instances that we know or hear that Microsoft has paid and/or NDAed companies, in order to keep its monopoly in the operating systems field. This was the point of Be, Inc. filling a lawsuit against Microsoft too and it is a 100% justifiable point.
Attempted monopolization of the browser market
Guilty as charged. According to the US law, monopoly by itself is not unlawful. Microsoft always wanted to be the No 1 company for any of the products they are shipping. In fact, that is what every company wants, including Sun. But the above statement alone will not bring Microsoft to its knees. There is nothing wrong with creating a monopoly (no matter if we, the ordinary people, like more choice), according to the law. If Sun would be able to prove that Microsoft attempted the monopolization of the browser market with dirty business practices, then (and only then) they can complain about it to the courts. And the plain fact is, IE under Windows (not under MacOS though) is the best browser today. It is stable, fast, capable, programmable, flexible and the favorite browser of any professional web developer (and I happen to be one). Why not being able to monopolize then?
Tying of Internet Explorer to Windows
This joke is not even funny anymore. The DOJ situation has been going on for years, trying to bring Microsoft down with this argument. In my (not so humble) opinion, this is absolutely laughable. Microsoft should be able to do whatever they want to their Operating System; they should be free to include IE with it, or porno, or anything else they wish. Windows is their product, and they should be free to do whatever they want with it as long as they do not use dirty business practices to bring down other competitors. People are free to choose Windows or not. Microsoft never forced any individual to buy their product.
This brings me to Linux/KDE and Konqueror. Konqueror is part of KDE, which is the major desktop environment today with more than 60% of the Linux desktop users. Konqueror is built around the KParts technology (tied to the KDE system pretty much the same way IE is to Windows), which are components used by many KDE applications at the same time. So, why don’t companies file a suit against the KDE project and all these Linux distros for bundling Konqueror? Or against Apple for bundling IE5 with MacOS? Is it because these companies and the market share they represent are not a threat yet? Well, if bundling IE was truly a crime, Apple should be in court as well, even if they only have 3% instead of 93% of the desktop market.
Tying Windows to Microsoft server and IIS software
This was the most laughable argument of all.
Sun, according to the lawsuit papers, does not like the fact that Windows 2000 and Windows XP Server Editions include IIS. Well, obviously! Sun does not want the server editions of Windows to come with Server software because Sun not only has the iPlanet Webserver of its own to sell, but also wants people to buy Sun Solaris machines for webservers, not use Windows machines. If they can throw a wrench in Microsoft’s web server strategy, it directly benefits them.
The problem is, there is a really good reason to not only bundle web server software with the “server” OS (convenience), but also to tightly integrate the webserver with the OS itself. IIS has achieved great performance benchmarks because portions of it have been moved into the kernel. Before anyone cries foul too loudly, remember that Red Hat has a webserver called TUX that’s even faster than IIS because it’s built into the Linux kernel.
Tying Microsoft’s .Net framework to the Windows desktop and server operating systems
See above. The .NET Framework would not have worked as well or as fast if it did not have operating system hooks. And we should not forget that Microsoft sees .NET as its future in the software business. And as dangerous as .NET is (because it is dangerous), It’s new enough that Microsoft has not even had time to try to abuse its monopoly power to encourage .NET adoption yet. In fact, in facing entrenched competition both from Java and established open source tools, the battle for .NET’s supremacy will probably have to be fought head on and out in the open.
Again, there are clear advantages both to ease of use and power to have .NET intimately tied to both Microsoft’s desktop and server OSes. And not just phoney advantages like browsing your hard drive through IE. Now these advantages will give Microsoft some real traction in the battle with Java (and therefore Sun) that’s gearing up. So, in conclusion, Microsoft’s monopoly will help its .NET plans, but the jury’s still out on how much, and Java is still the clear leader in that space. Again, it just smells like Sun protecting its turf.
Monopolization of the office productivity software market
Sure. And for a good reason. They have the best Office package out there, and they mostly came by their monopoly fairly, by out-maneuvering competitors like Wordperfect and Lotus years ago. Star Office is interesting and (was) free, but is not as powerful, speedy or capable as Office XP. And monopolies, achieved honestly, are not illegal.
Violation of the Cartwright Act, which is California’s version of the Sherman Antitrust Act
Quite possibly this is correct. Here is a document on understanding what the Cartwright Act is.
Unfair competition
At last, Sun got that point. And that should have been the one and only point that they should have sue Microsoft for instead of getting this childish look and argue to mom: “If I can’t have more toys, then take Microsoft’s toys away too.” I can see lots of jealousy going on at Sun. On the other hand, I can see the two companies: One that can’t make up its mind on anything while the other carries its decisions out, no matter the cost.
The other thing that is laughable is that Sun now demands that Java should be bundled with Windows! They could have just been a little more diplomatic a year ago when Microsoft was fiddling with its Java implementation. Sun’s rigidity forced Microsoft to either knuckle under or remove Java, so they removed Java. Now Sun wants to use the courts to have their cake and eat it too. You can’t have it both ways, Sun.
Here is an interesting article from Boston.com:
“But like other companies, Sun has been rattled by the technology slump. In its second quarter, ending in December, the company lost $431 million, compared to a $423 million profit the year before. Cutbacks in capital spending meant far slower sales of the company’s high-end computers. Last October, the company cut 3,900 jobs, the first layoffs in its history. Sun has also been spooked by the .NET Web services initiative of its hated rival, Microsoft Corp. .NET aims to make Microsoft’s software interact seamlessly over corporate networks and the Internet. If .NET becomes the standard in Web services, it undercuts Sun ONE, an alternative Web services strategy, based upon the company’s popular Java computing system. Sun is fighting back, not only by aggressively marketing Sun ONE but also by filing an antitrust suit Friday charging that Microsoft has sought to destroy Java and seeking damages that could reach $1 billion.” And another interesting analysis from the Gartner Group.
Many analysts and journalists have the same opinion on the matter. Based on this fact, I suspect that my opinions stated here are sure to generate controversy in the forums, but I stand on these opinions 100% because, I truly believe that Sun just aims too high this time. I think they aim too high not out of idealism or proven injury, but out of callous and transparent self-interest, and this invalidates any moral authority they may have had.
To be clear, I do not “hate” Microsoft out of principle, as many zealots fanatically do. I have nothing against their latest software, and I am a Windows user and I enjoy their latest software offerings. I do have a problem with the company when it comes to its business practices, but I also try to keep an open mind when it comes to their products, instead of blindly criticizing each and every move of the company.
It’s simple, Sun couldn’t compete on what should have been a fair playing field between two industry giants. Why? Overpriced hardware and overcomplicated software.
Sun is out for Sun. Period. And they are gunning after the biggest target they can find.
Would be even discussing this if Sun had been able to successfully tie Java, iPlanet software, StarOffice, Java, et cetera into Solaris and put it into 90+% of the homes and 40% of businesses like Microsoft has done with their products? No, I don’t think so.
If you don’t like the company, don’t use their software! The answer is *that* simple.
No one is physically forced to use Microsoft products. If they don’t like them, and use them anyway, then they should consider an alternative!
Sun seems to be mostly interested in getting something for nothing. Microsoft works *very hard* (in a monopolistic fashion or not) to be the best at what it does: sell software. If Sun was serious about competing in the software arena, they should have put more effort into **meeting their customers’ needs**. If they had, then maybe this whole fiasco wouldn’t be going on, and there would be more than one primary business desktop platform.
I think companies like Sun have agreat deal to offer but are trying to finish Microsoft off in the courts because the can’t beat them in a competitive environment. Sun are trying to discredit Microsoft in order to gain a stronger share of the markets Microsoft will lose if certain decisions go against them. Is this not similar to what Microsoft are accused of doing only Sun are managing to do it and still save face in the eyes of the consumer?
you guys are right, sun is feeling the heat from MS. .net is where its at, and they see it, that’s why they are scared.
Hi Eugenia
Browser & Java-attacks startet in 1995, with “free” IE
and making an incompatible java.
AFAIK they damaged also the sandbox by allowing access to native code intentionally,
giving java the image of being “not really secure”.
if somebody had killed someone years ago and justice takes time,
and the murderer says “hey look, iam not killing anyone anymore”,
do you say “oh you nice gui!” too?
(german) http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/em-20.05.98-000/
Browser & Java-attacks startet in 1995, with “free” IE
and making an incompatible java.
AFAIK they damaged also the sandbox by allowing access to native code intentionally,
giving java the image of being “not really secure”.
Sun already sued MS for that, and settled. Sun thought the settlement would result in MS shipping Sun’s JavaVM, but MS and Sun’s lawyers (when Sun freaked out that MS didn’t ship it) have since told them otherwise. Now what Sun’s looking for is the courts (or another settlement) to force MS to port .Net to Solaris for them, and then get a nice little agreement where Solaris ships MS’ .Net and MS ships Sun’s JavaVM, and they might want MS to drop J# (Java code running on .Net, basically) while they’re at it. If they want anything more than that, it’ll be along the lines of trying to split office market share with StarOffice, although I’d think they would’ve realized by now that if you can’t give it away, you’re going to have a hard time getting market share any other way.
Why do you think Sun are starting to charge for using StarOffice 6 on any other platform except Solaris? They are starting the ball rolling now and will cash in later when Microsoft have been defeated through ‘legal’ means.
When Sun could not see a way of beating Microsoft on a business level they waited until the time was right and then they uped the price of its office suite. I’m not saying Sun are as under handed as Microsoft but I feel they are still using similar tactics in order to gain an overall market share.
What do you guys think?
I’m not saying Sun are as under handed as Microsoft but I feel they are still using similar tactics in order to gain an overall market share.
heh, Sun are at least as underhanded as MS, they just don’t have the marketing staff (or don’t listen to them), nor the market share. Stuff like getting your customers to sign NDAs about flaws with your hardware and software before agreeing to give them tech support they paid for (and then not fixing the problem), and then bashing the media for releasing information about that policy, is par for the course with Sun. Sun’s better at bashing the competition than actually promoting their products, and it results in their market share (in addition to the prices they charge for their hardware, especially).
I also like how they repeatedly try to jump into markets that MS is strong in (or are getting into) and then complain when they can’t compete. If they put their resources into doing something well for once, they might actually have a place to start from.
As far as charging for StarOffice, McNealy says that his customers didn’t think he was serious about the product because Sun was giving it away, that their customers were basically asking for them to charge money for it. Sure, that explains why they won’t be charging for it on Solaris.
Blanco, I wish you were right, but I think the train already left the station for Solaris. Solaris will never be the OS Windows is – NEVER. One day, someone will invent something competitive, and it will become what customers want it to be (that’s why Windows is on servers and workstations, well…that and Microsoft wants to control the entire network flow). I agree with the above, had Sun ever truly united all of the great products they have, made a nice, user friendly environment, peddled it for actual money, and maybe snuck a few deals with OEMs in there, they might be truly competitive.
PainKilleR, I agree with the fact that many companies do not take a product obtained for free serious but surly it is down to the product to sell its self so to speak. Charging for a product simply because your customers have asked you to does not improve the product.
Sun are at least as underhanded as MS, they just don’t have the marketing staff
Yes, Sun are underhanded but are Sun’s ‘marketing’ staff not its lawers.
had Sun ever truly united all of the great products they have, made a nice, user friendly environment, peddled it for actual money, and maybe snuck a few deals with OEMs in there, they might be truly competitive.
This reiterates a comment made by Mystic TaCo. Sun do not want to work for a larger market share they just want it.
I keep reading posts at OSN but bite my lip. Eugenia, I can’t take this site seriously anymore!! and why do people compare Solaris with Windows? They are two different OS’s for different solutions!
The biggest problem I see in Microsoft never being torn off the throne is that “omputer Illiterate” people only know Windows, (maybe Mac OS) they learn how to use Windows, and that’s all they know. They are frustrated with Windows or atleast most people I know are, but they never bother whining because they don’t know that there is anything better or atleast that there is an alternative.
What we need is more Alternative OS marketing campaigns, I mean how many Apple commercials do you see? I see a few every year or so, how many for Linux? How many Advertisements did you see for BeOS? None, I’ve seen Linux mentioned once in an IBM server commercial, but only comp literate people know what linux is and why you would it on a large file server or net server.
Eugenia,
You leave out some crucial details in your comments about Microsoft bundling IE with Windows. If will remember, BEFORE Windows 98 when IE became an inextricable part of Windows, Microsoft was using its “dirty business practices” to force OEMS to ship with IE and IE alone. One OEM (I think it was Compaq, though I may be wrong) tried to sign a deal with Netscape to make Navigator their default browser in the computers they shipped and changed their minds after Microsoft started threatening to raise the price of Windows if they did it.
Microsoft has a right to innovate all they want with their OS, but the OEMs also should have a right to decide what they wish to ship with their products. Your arguments against Apple do not hold water, because Apple IS it’s own OEM and, as such, has a right to completely control the software it ships with.
Certainly, Microsoft was within their rights (IMO) when they decided to make the browser a part of the OS with Windows 98, but they did not have a right to disallow OEMs from shipping with Navigator. That was bullshit and that ties in directly to the issue of Microsoft bundling IE.
DISCLAIMER: Now that I write all this, I am hazy… either Microsoft was disallowing OEMs from shipping with Navigator, OR they were not allowing them to put Navigator on the desktop. It was one of the two. Someone please correct me if they know better.
I have to say that I have to agree on those issues. I don’t see how bundling a web browser is any different than bundling a media player or a text editor. They are items that an end user might be interested in using. Many competiting OS’s including MacOS and BeOS have bundled with a browser so why can’t MS? If a practice is acceptable behavior for one company I believe it is acceptable practice for all. In order for Netscape or Opera or any other competing browser for windows to get more users they need to convince them that their browser is better than IE. It as simple as that. Why do so many people use WinAMP? Because they consider it a better media player than Windows Media player. If Sun believes that Java is a better language than they must convince developers that Java is a better language for what they are developing. As of right now if Sun’s Java lost to .net several years down the line it wouldn’t be because Sun didn’t have enough consumers with a java vm. While MS’s JVM is older anything written for Java 1.1 will work with both Sun and MS’s JVM. Personally I have read about most of the new features that have been added since then and some of them I think are frankly cute, but not a neccesity in order to develop an applet in java. Since there is almost nothing right now that has been written in .net by most every measurement more things are being done in java right now. IF Sun’s Java loses to .net it’s because they failed to convince developers, not because Microsoft used unfair tactics. While Microsoft may be powerful and sometimes labeled as evil I thing think that saying Microsoft is the same as Standard Oil, who went out and literally were destroying competitors production capabilities, is huge difference.
Spot on.
Microsoft can and do bundle what they like with their OS, but denying OEM’s to bundle software IS an illegal use of a monopoly, even in the good ol’ US of A.
PainKilleR, I agree with the fact that many companies do not take a product obtained for free serious but surly it is down to the product to sell its self so to speak. Charging for a product simply because your customers have asked you to does not improve the product.
Hey, ask McNealy, I was just paraphrasing him. I don’t think StarOffice is worth the download time, let alone whatever they want to charge for it.
and why do people compare Solaris with Windows? They are two different OS’s for different solutions!
Interesting thought, but, at least in the areas that I tend to work in, they’re commonly used interchangably, and customers often want applications ported from one to the other. Someone wants to move their DOS or WinNT3.x platform to Solaris or wants to move their Solaris platform to Win2k, and they want me to port it for them (and usually in less time than any human could do it). Whether they’re meant for the same market or not, there is overlap simply because the customer is using them in the same market (though to some degree I agree that they shouldnt be in the same market).
What we need is more Alternative OS marketing campaigns, I mean how many Apple commercials do you see? I see a few every year or so,
Apple gets a lot of press attention when they announce new products (see iMac and the new iMac), but very few PC retailers are willing to stock them and set them next to the PC, or stock software for the platform. When I go to Fry’s, I see a lot of people that are browsing through the PCs stop and look at the iMacs and PowerMacs, they’re sitting right next to the PCs, and they stand out. Some people buy them, some don’t, just like any of the other PCs sitting there.
Different people have different needs from their computers, but for the vast majority an Apple product will do just as well as a Dell, Compaq, HP, etc. The problem is that they don’t get many chances to see the Apple products when they are walking through the stores. The same goes with Linux or any other alternative OS. You have people that basically just need a browser, email client, IM software, maybe be able to use their digital cameras, scanners, and so on, and maybe work on some office suite once in a while. For most people a Mac is at least an equal candidate, but a lot of the Linux distros still have a ways to go on ease of use, and the open source office suites still need better compatibility with Office (hey, incompatibilities between WordPerfect and Word got my parents to buy Word, and those were fairly minor issues at the time, cost is not often a big factor, ease of use and compatibility are huge).
I think Sun is the only company with the stones to go after Microsoft anymore. Everyone else is afraid of the MS Legal Dreadnought. It seems to me that the biggest departments at Microsoft must be Legal and Marketing. I bet all of the MS product code is written by one-hundred or less programmers. They don’t need more than that. Any new tech that is competitive or good gets bought out (Visio, Front Page), licensed (MOM, Drive Defragmenter), or crushed (Be). After Legal and Marketing, in size, probably comes Support, Consulting, and Packaging. After all, you need people to box all of the software being sold to everyone, then you need Consulting to push (sorry, suggest – wink, wink) more software on the Corporations, and Support to try to help when the bug-ridden software goes to hell in a handbasket (Why do you think MS needs such a freakin huge Knowledge Base and Technet). Soon they will own the world…
DISCLAIMER: Now that I write all this, I am hazy… either Microsoft was disallowing OEMs from shipping with Navigator, OR they were not allowing them to put Navigator on the desktop. It was one of the two. Someone please correct me if they know better.
Actually, they threatened to stop selling Windows to Compaq if Compaq did not put the MSN and IE icons back on the desktop, as they were removing them in addition to placing AOL and Netscape icons on the desktop. It didn’t take long for Compaq to decide to ship with MSN, IE, AOL, and Netscape icons on the desktop. For as-true-as-can-be-found information on it, try the district court’s website, in Judge Jackson’s findings of fact. It’s not a guarantee that it happened exactly as stated, but it’s as close as we’re going to find out.
<blockquote>This brings me to Linux/KDE and Konqueror. Konqueror is part of KDE, which is the major desktop environment today with more than 60% of the Linux desktop users. Konqueror is built around the KParts technology (tied to the KDE system pretty much the same way IE is to Windows), which are components used by many KDE applications at the same time. So, why don’t companies file a suit against the KDE project and all these Linux distros for bundling Konqueror? Or against Apple for bundling IE5 with MacOS? Is it because these companies and the market share they represent are not a threat yet? Well, if bundling IE was truly a crime, Apple should be in court as well, even if they only have 3% instead of 93% of the desktop market.</blockquote>Well any modern desktop such as KDE or Windows has to choose <em>something</em> as a renderer of HTML. Konquerer chooses KHTML by default, with the option of Mozilla/Gecko (it’s in one of the dropdowns). This is cleanly abstracted and when you choose Mozilla/Gecko the documentation, help pages, etc., are rendered using Mozilla/Gecko and you can safely remove KHTML from KDE. This is distinct from Windows and IE where it’s used without choice through the system for documentation, help pages, etc..
<p>To be clear, I believe Microsoft should be able to bundle by default anything they want. But they haven’t designed it with abstraction to use anything else. An argument could be that if they weren’t a monopoly they would have been forced by the market to design allow competing software as a feature. Not allowing the system to be customised could be taken as an abuse of monopoly.
<p>I don’t believe this line of argument. It’s Microsoft’s damn software. The OEM guff that Microsoft’s pulled is too anti-competitive for my liking though.
I think Sun is the only company with the stones to go after Microsoft anymore. Everyone else is afraid of the MS Legal Dreadnought. It seems to me that the biggest departments at Microsoft must be Legal and Marketing.
Microsoft’s legal department before the DoJ started coming after them was 2 or 3 people, because MS doesn’t like having a legal department (they saw lawyers as the reason for IBM’s failure to keep MS, Intel, and the clones from taking over the PC market).
I bet all of the MS product code is written by one-hundred or less programmers. They don’t need more than that.
Since MS reports their R&D headcount as 20,545, I somehow doubt that only 100 or less of that is programmers working on actual MS product code.
Any new tech that is competitive or good gets bought out (Visio, Front Page), licensed (MOM, Drive Defragmenter), or crushed (Be).
and do you think that they actually just fired every developer working on Visio or Front Page? Don’t you think it’s a good idea to keep at least the key developers from each project, since they’d otherwise have to refamiliarize their own developers with that code base?
After Legal and Marketing, in size, probably comes Support, Consulting, and Packaging. After all, you need people to box all of the software being sold to everyone, then you need Consulting to push (sorry, suggest – wink, wink) more software on the Corporations, and Support to try to help when the bug-ridden software goes to hell in a handbasket (Why do you think MS needs such a freakin huge Knowledge Base and Technet). Soon they will own the world…
You’re right on one part, they list their sales & support staff as being larger than (23,217) their R&D staff. Their Operations staff (typically management and legal) is listed as significantly smaller than either, though, at 6,166. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/inside_ms.asp#headcount“>If , unless you think they’re completely fabricating those numbers for their investors, anyway. Don’t worry, though, it costs less to have someone else do distribution and packaging than to do it in-house, so they probably don’t have many of those operations staff boxing CDs for them.
“I bet all of the MS product code is written by one-hundred or less programmers. They don’t need more than that.”
You guess completely wrong. There are lot of developpers at MS and they are really brilliant (oh by the way, some are coming from the Linux world!). Also MS is one of the company with the most testers per developper (I think it is a ratio of 1 to 1).
There is also a lot of researchs at MS or investment in technologies that never come out for different marketing or technological reason.
Now MS has a powerfull marketing departement because they regconize that without marketing, technology is nothing. And yes, the Marketing often drive the products, but that the way a company who wants to be profitable must do.
Now don’t get me wrong: do I like MS tricks to impose there product based on Windows monopoly. No and I think Microsoft should be condemned when they cross the line. But MS has some good products, these product responds to what people wants because MS study carefully the market.
If you have a monopoly you cannot use that monopoly to extend your business into a new area.
Using the OS monopoly to extend you internet interests (MSN, MS web servers, MS audio and video streaming) is illegal. The same rules do not apply to a monopoly.
When/If (insert OS name) becomes a monopoly on the desktop or server then they will not be allowed to bundle willy nilly.
Note the current settlement between Sun and MS was over copyright and contract issues, ie use of the Java Logo and name for a none compliant product. It had nothing (in the legal sense) to do with the damages that the preditave behaviour caused.
This is all my humble opinion.
“I keep reading posts at OSN but bite my lip. Eugenia, I can’t take this site seriously anymore!! and why do people compare Solaris with Windows? They are two different OS’s for different solutions!”
Yeah. And why Sun sue Microsoft if they are SO unrelated ? That’s all this thread is about. I don’t understand what you’re thinking …
Are YOU serious ?
“The biggest problem I see in Microsoft never being torn off the throne is that “[c]omputer Illiterate” people only know Windows”
False. I think for a computer illiterate, Windows is currently the easiest and better solution (except for MacOS, but we are talking about PC I guess).
“They are frustrated with Windows or atleast most people I know are”
Well that’s strange. At least most people I know are very satisfied with Windows. The only complains I can heard about Windows are from non-illiterate computer user, either because their technical needs are very precises and non-Desktop oriented (Linux for servers, BeOS for sound mixing, etc), or they are just teens-script-kiddies-yo-cool-man that think bashing Windows (without valids arguments) is cool and make them important.
“I see a few every year or so, how many for Linux? ”
Again, I don’t think it’s wise for any business to put money to advertise Linux for the “joe-user”. Linux is still far to be ready for this. Maybe very soon it will (and I hope so), but not now.
“If you have a monopoly you cannot use that monopoly to extend your business into a new area.
Using the OS monopoly to extend you internet interests (MSN, MS web servers, MS audio and video streaming) is illegal. The same rules do not apply to a monopoly.”
Excuse me, but where does anti-trust law say that one can’t diversify your business? I’ve read through the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and several other associated anti-trust statues and most of them applied to companies that burned competitors oil-fields or paid members of congress to have government contracts go to their company. The last I checked Microsoft hasn’t been destroying any competitors R&D abilities and most government agencies use little or no microsoft software so I would find it surprising that Microsoft has even a majority of the government computer systems. I mean the DOJ releases documents in Word Perfect, but not Word. Illegal anticompetitive activities include collusion, uneven licensing, false advertising claims, kickbacks paid to government agents, legislators, or regulation agencies. Microsoft may be liable to pay fees to IBM because they paid excessive licensing fees for their development of OS/2, but beyond that I haven’t seen much in the way of anti-competitive behavior from MS. Business practices such as mergers(provided that the FTC approves), price wars, aggresive marketing(provided no false claims are made), and corporate partnerships aren’t illegal activities and therefore aren’t subject to anti-trust laws. Any behavior that is acceptable for one company is acceptable for all. If Apple, Sun, or Microsoft is caught paying kickbacks to government agents deciding on a software/hardware purchase they can all be prosecuted under anti-trust law. Anti-trust law applies to all companies not simply those that have monopoly power. As Eugenia propered pointed out Apple bundles IE, but that isn’t anti-competitive behavior and therefore it isn’t anti-competitive behavior. I am getting tired of people talking about how MS’s competitors can do anything and MS can’t sell any new products.
I agree %100 with Eugenias opinions. Like many of us here, I’m an avid IT industry watcher, and it is a rarity to find well informed thought out articles such as this. (and your editorial on .net was as awesome as informitive)
Hopefully one day we can pick up a copy of PC World and the ilk, and find ‘mainstream’ editorials as frank, accurate and honest as this one. Versus the rhetoric slop we get from the ‘mainstream’ now.
Originally Apple bundled Netscape with their OS.
Then M$ “invested” in apple and promised mac office support if Apple dumped Netscape in favor of IE.
If Apple cannot bundle Netscape along with IE in offering their OS, then “i am getting tired of people not understanding the issues”
Hey Eugenia you forgot the disclaimer.
“The content in this rant is the opinion of the author only, and does not represent an informed, coherent, or even remotely relevant fact”
This is supposed to be “News” ?
“This is supposed to be “News” ?”
AFAIK OSNews never pretended to be a journalistic, CNN kind of site. It’s more of a “anything related to the OS world”. But maybe I’m wrong, just my perception …
Just a rant?
So, I guess when Eugenia selects a story to post that is a link to someone else’s review or editorial (like the one at Salon for ‘Netscape deserves to lose’) from the ‘mainstream’ press, then and only then is it to be considered “news”?
If you have a problem that you think the opinion of the ONLY sole editor and moderator of this site is “not even remotely relevent fact” then you should really stop coming here, don’t you think? You won’t be missed by anyone, trust me. Nothing is stopping you from going out and getting your own website.
And, why don’t you please tell us, what exactly makes YOUR opinion so damn special?
>Yeah. And why Sun sue Microsoft if they are SO unrelated?
>That’s all this thread is about. I don’t understand what
>you’re thinking …
>Are YOU serious ?
Er, yes I am serious. The thread is NOT about the comparison of Solaris/Windows so saying Windows is a better desktop OS than Solaris is just a rather an idiotic statement. Solaris is NOT a desktop OS, Windows is. Why do you find this confusing? Or are you really level five?
“IE under Windows (not under MacOS though) is the best browser today. It is stable, fast, capable, programmable, flexible and the favorite browser of any professional web developer”
I don’t agree with that. I think that both Opera 6 and Netscape 6.2.1 are as good as IE (which I used to prefer over these ones). And I now use both in favor of IE (especially since 5.5 and 6 were versions I didn’t like).
Also web developers (which I happen to be sometimes) prefer IE because it’s used by most end-user ! But since MS only respect their own standard some of these sites are unreadable by other browsers (thanx to BAD developers, not just MS).
First off I don’t think threatening to not license the os to compaq if its going to bundle another browser is illegal (underhanded yes, but there have been much worse cases in the tech industry). If you own a grocery store you can refuse to sell to anyone for any reason, even if your the only grocery store in town (granted its a weak analogy but it works).
I’ll tell you what really annoys me about all the people who hate microsoft because hating microsoft is “cool” right now is the fact they point to apple as a “good” company, when really if apple wasn’t as dimwitted with their decisions in the early 80s we’d all be using macs right now and they’d be getting sued. If apple was still on top they’d be selling us everything microsoft does and our hardware to boot. Of course half the apple lovers out there claim microsoft’s investment into apple was completely unnecessary from a financial point of view.
btw whoever blamed ms for beos demise should pass that buck right along to be itself (for completely mismanaging a viable company, be was big in europe and could’ve turned a decent profit) or palm for buying its corpse and picking it clean (same way creative picked over aureal’s corpse).
I am in favour of OSNews running stories of this kind, but their title on the main OSNews page should always begin “Opinion-“, so that readers can see, without having to open the page, that the story has no news but just somebody’s opinion.
OK, now my 2c worth:
Sun’s Java was a great idea, which was deliberately wrecked by Microsoft. MS knew that Java was supposed to be platform-independent, yet they added “great Windows extensions” to Java. The result – 50% of the Java applets that I load from the web fail to work. If my browser runs the MS plugin, applets written for pure Java don’t work; if my browser runs the Java plugin, applets written for MS don’t work. The result – the death of Java as a platform for running applets in a browser – exactly what MS intended. The fact that MS did all this while using the Java logo and pretending to be Java-compliant leads them wide open to legal redress, and I hope that Sun succeeds in its lawsuit.
That Sun’s lawyers have been allowed to add a raft of legally dubious claims to the suit, which will have the effect of greatly increasing their fees, while prolonging the suit for many years, leads one to question the sanity of Sun’s senior managers.
I am not sure that MS’s activities in this area could be described as “innovation”. The great tragedy is that MS could have won the desktop, browser, and applet wars through the superiority of its products (innovative or not), but did not have the confidence to attempt this without using illegal business practices. That is the real criticism of the company, and one that is still valid today.
The fact that Sun’s managers and attorneys are not behaving sensibly, and the fact that MS products (after many release cycles) eventually become better than their competition, should not blind us to the fact that MS is running an illegal monopoly, and is using illegal business practices to stifle competition – not my opinion, but a US court’s findings of fact.
“Sun’s Java was a great idea, which was deliberately wrecked by Microsoft”
I think Java was a great idea which was somewhat wrecked by Sun itself. I am not a Java developper but I read many time that the “write once, run everywhere” did not really ever work. Even on Sun own virtual machine. Is it really MS fault? Should MS have to support every competitive technology? I don’t think so. Sun sue and settle with MS about the incompatibilities in the MS implementation of Java. I think MS official position now is somewhat like: as we don’t believe without our extension one can do anything with Java, we do not support it anymore. Sun, please do support it yourself! Fair enough.
First off I don’t think threatening to not license the os to compaq if its going to bundle another browser is illegal (underhanded yes, but there have been much worse cases in the tech industry). If you own a grocery store you can refuse to sell to anyone for any reason, even if your the only grocery store in town (granted its a weak analogy but it works).
Note that Compaq was still permitted to bundle Netscape, they just had to put the IE icon back on the desktop. MS’ only real problem with what Compaq did was pulling the IE and MSN icons off of the desktop.
Of course, today Compaq can hide the IE icon all they want, and MS is working on an interface (control panel applet maybe?) that will allow OEMs and end users to enable/disable access to most of the bundled/integrated applications in Windows. Therefore Compaq can disable access to IE, while the end user can still go in and re-enable it if they want it, or WMP, or MSN Messenger, etc. That’s being done as part of compliance with the DoJ settlement (it’s in Ballmer’s deposition), but, of course, certain things (like Windows Update) will still launch IE for their specific purpose (because they haven’t been tested with another browser or specifically require features that don’t exist in another browser).
As far as Java goes, my opinion is that MS should’ve been allowed to create a version of Java for developers wishing to write Windows clients in the language. Java’s performance under Windows was pretty bad back when MS released Visual J++. Of course, I haven’t had any problems running Java applets on my system, but then I don’t see a lot of them, either.
<blockquote type=”cite”>I read many time that the “write once, run everywhere” did not really ever work. Even on Sun own virtual machine.</blockquote>
I’ve read that too.
My personal experience with Java though was that *Sun’s* VM ran quite well across a variety of machines and browsers for what I wanted to do. That was a fairly simple applet: a sort of drill program so my students could practice their math skills.
I did have problems with both Netscape’s and IE’s VM’s.
A Math & CS professor I know complained that the problem with Java was that Sun kept changing the standard. He called it “a moving target”: for example, the move from AWT to Swing.
In any case, since Microsoft decided to block Java in Windows XP “for security reasons” Java’s probably dead.
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/12113.html
In any case, since Microsoft decided to block Java in Windows XP “for security reasons” Java’s probably dead.
Actually, there are just some security settings in IE that can block Java applets from running, which is a good thing, imo, if you want to block Java from running over the internet, for whatever reason.
The reason that a JavaVM doesn’t ship with WindowsXP is simple: Sun told them to stop shipping the MS VM as part of the settlement of Sun’s original lawsuit over Java, so MS stopped shipping it. Someone at Sun (or their lawyers) must’ve been asleep when they wrote up the agreement, because they assumed that MS would actually ship Sun’s VM without a specific agreement forcing them to. MS simply loaded their own VM into WindowsUpdate (it’s the first thing that comes up when you install WindowsXP), or you can just go to Sun and download their VM. Either way, Sun’s pissed that MS didn’t ship Sun’s VM and decided that Java isn’t something that has to ship with their OS for the OS to live.
“It’s simple, Sun couldn’t compete on what should have been a fair playing field between two industry giants. Why? Overpriced hardware and overcomplicated software.”
Sun’s software isn’t complicated, and it’s hardware is priced about right for the quality and performance of it. Why are you comparing a desktop OS with a full blown server OS? That’s like comparing your tricycle with a space shuttle and saying the space shuttle sucks because you can’t ride around the block on it. These two OSes are for very different things.
“Sun is out for Sun. Period. And they are gunning after the biggest target they can find.”
No, Microsoft has tried for 7 years to steal Java from Sun. In their latest attempt, they rewrote Java, called it C# and quit shipping with Sun’s VM. I think Sun has every right to be pissed off.
“Would be even discussing this if Sun had been able to successfully tie Java, iPlanet software, StarOffice, Java, et cetera into Solaris and put it into 90+% of the homes and 40% of businesses like Microsoft has done with their products? No, I don’t think so.”
Why would they do that? Their products are not meant for home users.
If you don’t like the company, don’t use their software! The answer is *that* simple.
“No one is physically forced to use Microsoft products. If they don’t like them, and use them anyway, then they should consider an alternative!”
Yes they are. 90% of computer users have no idea how to open a computer let along build their own. So where do they get their computers? At CompUSA, Wal-Mart, Gateway, Compaq, Dell, etc. What comes on the computer when they open it? Windows. Without knowing what you’re doing, can you purchase a Linux PC? No. How about BeOS (when it was still around)? No. How about one of the BSDs? No. How about no OS at all? No. How many people know what they are doing? Not many. Therefore it is pretty safe to say that for the average joe, if you buy a PC you are forced to use Windows.
“Sun seems to be mostly interested in getting something for nothing. Microsoft works *very hard* (in a monopolistic fashion or not) to be the best at what it does: sell software.”
What!?! Sun worked very hard on producing the Java platform. MS tried numerous times to steal it from them. As I said in my last post, C# is NOTHING more than a blatant rip off of Java with some Windows OS hooks built in (which is exactly what they tried to do with J++ 6.0 by adding WFC). Sun has every right to sue them and I hope they win big. Hard work is nothing to to be commended if it is done immorally.
“If Sun was serious about competing in the software arena, they should have put more effort into **meeting their customers’ needs**.”
Have you ever met an unhappy Solaris user? Do you hear Solaris users complaining about Blue Screen’s of Death? Do you hear of Solaris servers crashing all the time or needing to be rebooted every 30 minutes or so? No. Therefore, it seems to me that Sun has made their customers damn happy.
“If they had, then maybe this whole fiasco wouldn’t be going on, and there would be more than one primary business desktop platform.”
Again, the only reason there is a primary business desktop platform is that MS has used it’s monopoly to make it so. This should not be commended and people should sue them for doing it.
Sun’s software isn’t complicated, and it’s hardware is priced about right for the quality and performance of it. Why are you comparing a desktop OS with a full blown server OS? That’s like comparing your tricycle with a space shuttle and saying the space shuttle sucks because you can’t ride around the block on it. These two OSes are for very different things.
Paying 4x the going rate (buying tested memory rated at the same level) for a memory upgrade isn’t overpriced? Buying hardware from Sun is a good way to blow your budget, especially when you’re looking at workstations (remember, not everything Sun produces is servers).
No, Microsoft has tried for 7 years to steal Java from Sun. In their latest attempt, they rewrote Java, called it C# and quit shipping with Sun’s VM. I think Sun has every right to be pissed off.
Go look at J# for a while and tell me again why they would write C# if the only purpose is to replace Java. Sun forced MS to stop shipping MS’ JavaVM, that doesn’t mean that they have any reason to ship Sun’s VM. You can go download it like everyone else. Sun’s pissed because they didn’t get a clause to ship their VM when they forced MS to stop shipping the MS VM.
“Would be even discussing this if Sun had been able to successfully tie Java, iPlanet software, StarOffice, Java, et cetera into Solaris and put it into 90+% of the homes and 40% of businesses like Microsoft has done with their products? No, I don’t think so.”
Why would they do that? Their products are not meant for home users.
Java and StarOffice are certainly meant for home and business desktops as much as anything else. That’s the real question, with Sun’s primary market being servers and workstations, why do they keep investing in technologies that have very little to do with their primary market, and, more often than not, compete directly with Microsoft?
“you guys are right, sun is feeling the heat from MS. .net is where its at, and they see it, that’s why they are scared.”
Why would they be scared? Solaris uses the Gnome desktop and .NET will be available for it fairly soon. Nobody is selling .NET so Sun can write to it just like everyone else can if they want to.
The truth of the matter is that .NET will only work well on Windows and is not compelling enough to get non-Windows users or Microsoft haters to switch over. In fact, as a programmer, I am offended by .NET and have no intention of doing anything with it out of sheer spite.
You’ll be offended too when Word costs you $20.00 a month to use. That’s were this is all going, so I hope you think .NET is “where its at” when you’re forking over money for your monthly MS bill.
I’ll be happily working outside of this paradigm on superior systems with no monthly bills.
“StarOffice, although I’d think they would’ve realized by now that if you can’t give it away, you’re going to have a hard time getting market share any other way.”
I’m a happy user of StarOffice. I think version 6’s XML based file format is outstanding. The only reason StarOffice isn’t already in every home across the globe is that people, by nature, are incredibly stupid. They feel somehow that huge cost equals huge quality. Such is often times not the case. Therefore, to accomodate human stupidity, Sun is now going to charge for their product (except for people who run Solaris. Apparently, Sun feels that these people are not stupid).
“I think Java was a great idea which was somewhat wrecked by Sun itself. I am not a Java developper but I read many time that the “write once, run everywhere” did not really ever work.”
I am a Java developer, and I’ve never had a problem with it running Sun’s JRE. Microsoft screwed Java up on Windows several years ago and as a result of the lawsuit brought against them by Sun, they could only ship the really old VM. That’s why I think it’s good that MS doesn’t ship a JVM with XP. Sun’s is better anyway, so it’s best not to confuse the average Windows user too much. Just make them download the up-to-date JVM.
“Even on Sun own virtual machine.”
This is not true.
“Is it really MS fault? Should MS have to support every competitive technology? I don’t think so. Sun sue and settle with MS about the incompatibilities in the MS implementation of Java. I think MS official position now is somewhat like: as we don’t believe without our extension one can do anything with Java, we do not support it anymore. Sun, please do support it yourself! Fair enough.”
Actually, I worked at Microsoft when all of the .NET stuff was being designed. Micrsoft LOVED Java. I mean absolutely LOVED it. However, they wanted to steal it from Sun, control it, and make it a Windows only thing. So what it comes down to is that they loved the Java language, but not the restrictions on the JVM side. Therefore, they stole the language, called it C# and created their own VM which is a convoluted mess of MSIL, CLR and .NET crap.
Therefore, Microsoft’s stance is, “You won’t let us have it? Fine! We’ll steal it!” Which is what there stance always is.
Microsoft’s executive committee are a bunch of lying thugs if you want my honest opinion.
Paying 4x the going rate (buying tested memory rated at the same level) for a memory upgrade isn’t overpriced?
That’s the nature of buying memory from any full system vendor. Buy SDRAM from Dell for you Dell high end workstations and your going to be paying $800.00 for a GB of RAM as opposed to about $250.00 from a do-it-yourself computer shop. Apple is the same way. That’s just the nature of these businesses, so no, comparing them to other manufacturers like Dell, Apple, and so forth, I think their right in line (no more bloated than anyone else).
“Buying hardware from Sun is a good way to blow your budget, especially when you’re looking at workstations (remember, not everything Sun produces is servers).”
I know, but Sun’s workstations are excellent machines, more so than the x86 architecture. There hardware is a much higher grade, so of course it’s going to cost more. Again, I think their prices are in line with what you get.
“Go look at J# for a while and tell me again why they would write C# if the only purpose is to replace Java.”
Back in 98 or 99, Microsoft added WFC and some other crap to J++ which broke Java (meaning if you wrote a Java app using MS’s tool you would not be able to run it on any other OS). J# only exists to try and get Java programmers to port their Java code to .NET. C# is everything that Java was, only with the added benefits of WFC (called something else though) and all the other “improvements” that MS wanted to make. They can’t do that with Java.
“Sun forced MS to stop shipping MS’ JavaVM, that doesn’t mean that they have any reason to ship Sun’s VM. You can go download it like everyone else. Sun’s pissed because they didn’t get a clause to ship their VM when they forced MS to stop shipping the MS VM.”
I think you should download you own JVM from Sun. I think Microsoft’s not shipping the JVM on XP was the best thing that could have happened for Java since MS’s JVM sucked.
“Jva and StarOffice are certainly meant for home and business desktops as much as anything else. That’s the real question, with Sun’s primary market being servers and workstations, why do they keep investing in technologies that have very little to do with their primary market, and, more often than not, compete directly with Microsoft?”
Weren’t you talking about their OS and hardware before?
Anyway, why not compete with Microsoft. Microsoft needs a lot of competition. What is not right is when MS uses their OS to destroy other technologies and companies. This is why they have been sued in the past and I hope this is why they get sued by many many more companies until they finally learn that this is unacceptable.
I also wish people would quit defending this behavior and realize that MS killing all competition is not in any end user’s best interest.
“Go look at J# for a while and tell me again why they would write C# if the only purpose is to replace Java.”
Back in 98 or 99, Microsoft added WFC and some other crap to J++ which broke Java (meaning if you wrote a Java app using MS’s tool you would not be able to run it on any other OS). J# only exists to try and get Java programmers to port their Java code to .NET. C# is everything that Java was, only with the added benefits of WFC (called something else though) and all the other “improvements” that MS wanted to make. They can’t do that with Java.
J# is J++ w/ .Net support (basically WFC, after all WFC is where a lot of .Net’s object model came from). C# has quite a bit that Java doesn’t, is standardized, etc. but they do have some automated tools for translating Java to C#. From looking at it, I tend to see that C# is geared more towards C++ users that want some of the advantages of Java, and it makes a convenient smoke screen for J#, since everyone focused on it before MS even announced J#.
I think you should download you own JVM from Sun. I think Microsoft’s not shipping the JVM on XP was the best thing that could have happened for Java since MS’s JVM sucked.
I won’t agree or disagree on MS’ JVM. It works for me, but I try to avoid actually writing in Java.
Weren’t you talking about their OS and hardware before?
Could’ve been, I’ve talked about a lot of things in this and a couple of other threads. If you want to talk OS and hardware my only real complaint is that my customers are using the two platforms interchangably, but you’re saying that they aren’t in the same market.
Anyway, why not compete with Microsoft. Microsoft needs a lot of competition. What is not right is when MS uses their OS to destroy other technologies and companies. This is why they have been sued in the past and I hope this is why they get sued by many many more companies until they finally learn that this is unacceptable.
Sun doesn’t have the focus to bring it’s resources into competition with Microsoft’s core markets. That’s the problem, and Sun’s solution is lawsuits. Sun didn’t even try with StarOffice, they just bought it and put very little effort into marketing it, and now they’re bringing it into court on the coattails of everything else. My personal opinion of the version of StarOffice that I downloaded is quite low, so I don’t even know why they invested in that particular product.
I also wish people would quit defending this behavior and realize that MS killing all competition is not in any end user’s best interest.
I just wish that for once I could point to a particular product that MS has taken market share from and say ‘look, theres something that was better, but MS screwed us’. Unfortunately, it’s quite rare that it happens that way. Then again, I don’t believe that it’s the government’s job to regulate the market economy, either, so sometimes there’s a difference in beliefs involved, as well.
If you hate microsoft so much why did you work there? If they blatantly stole java and you were there at the meetings why not come forward and crack this thing wide open for sun and stomp that evil bill gates (damn typing doesn’t convey sarcasm well). The truth is sun wants to punish microsoft for making them look like fools. Same thing with the netscape suit (well thats aol’s stab at their rival). btw I’m sure some people would rather have pay-per-use access to programs (lets face it if you only use word half a dozen times a year is it worth $200 to you or $1 a use or whatever).
<blockquote type=”cite”> Actually, there are just some security settings in IE that can block Java applets from running, which is a good thing, imo, if you want to block Java from running over the internet, for whatever reason.</blockquote>Right, and the default settings with XP are off:default security settings of the latest Windows XP test platform block Java applets..
Since when does Microsoft actually ship with secure settings? They should turn off defaults in Outlook that run programs without one’s permission. Now THAT would be a security improvement to Windows. Or have they finally started doing that?<blockquote type=”cite”>The reason that a JavaVM doesn’t ship with WindowsXP is simple: Sun told them to stop shipping the MS VM…</blockquote>Right. I didn’t imply otherwise, although an earlier draft of my posting would have.<blockquote type=”cite”>Someone at Sun (or their lawyers) must’ve been asleep when they wrote up the agreement…</blockquote>Agreed completely. That seems to be pretty common among lawyers who deal with Microsoft, including US DoJ.
I’m getting tired of these stories about Windows 2000 not being a reliable OS. Stop pulling my dick, OK?
“Stratus ftServer™ Premier Services and Availability Program
100% Availability Program for ftServer
Stratus Technologies is the world’s most trusted provider of products and services that guarantee virtually uninterrupted processing for applications that must not fail. Now Stratus brings world-class business technology to its new ftServer product line – a family of Microsoft® Windows® 2000-based servers. Because the ftServer technology integrates hardware fault tolerance, software availability, and service, you get the highest possible uptime without the additional cost of special configuration, administration, scripting, or programming.
While other vendors talk about assuring availability, at Stratus we design every one of our products and services for continuous computing. As part of our commitment to provide the highest levels of uptime we include our 100% Availability Program with every ftServer covered under a Business Critical ftServiceSM Program agreement. The ftServer 100% Availability Program applies to the ftServer hardware and software, and to the kernel of the Windows 2000 operating system.
Contact your local Stratus service representative for detailed information about the 100% Availability Program.”
http://www.stratus.com/support/ftserver/100grnt.htm
***
“About Stratus
The World’s Most Reliable Server Technologies
Stratus Technologies is the world’s most trusted provider of computer products, services, and technologies that guarantee continuously available processing for applications that must not fail. We are the servers of global business, of the Fortune 1000, and the worlds major industries. Stratus’ builds the ultimate reliability into its servers and service. We have more than 700 customers worldwide in markets that demand non-stop computing such as financial services, retail, travel, public safety, healthcare, manufacturing and electronic commerce market.”
Monopolization of the office productivity software market Sure. And for a good reason. They have the best Office package out there, and they mostly came by their monopoly fairly, by out-maneuvering competitors like Wordperfect and Lotus years ago. Star Office is interesting and (was) free, but is not as powerful, speedy or capable as Office XP. And monopolies, achieved honestly, are not illegal.
—————-
I disagree with this point. When Microsoft released Windows 3.1 NO ONE ELSE’S PRODUCTS WORKED, and they couldn’t GET them to work. So Word and Excel came from behind – not great products then, with low market share – and took over the entire market. Word Perfect was a great product with the major market share. Lotus 123 was a great product with the major market share. Quatro was a great product. All of these companies were doing very well. So Microsoft used APIs that were secret to the rest of the industry which kept Word Perfect, Lotus and other products from working correctly. And just for good measure they stopped allowing computer manufacturers to install anything but Microsoft applications. (They took over the database market by making Access free until DBase went out of business.)
They used their OS monopoly to completely take over the productivity software marketplace. Only later did they improve their products.