Neowin.net - Microsoft wins stay of Java order

Microsoft wins stay of Java order

Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 04 February 2003 - 03:52 · 32 comments & 2148 views

Thanks C0ld...Microsoft received a reprieve on Monday from a court order requiring the company to ship Sun Microsystems' Java software. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Microsoft a stay of a Jan. 21 decision from U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore, who gave the company 120 days to begin including Sun's latest Java runtime environment in every copy of Windows and Internet Explorer.

Earlier in the day, Microsoft had said that it would comply with Motz's order by beginning to ship an updated version of Windows XP Service Pack 1 that includes a more current Java Runtime Environment from Sun. Monday's decision means that Motz's injunction will be on hold unless the appeals court upholds the order. No hearing has been scheduled yet.

"We are pleased the Fourth Circuit has stayed the court order and agreed to hear our appeal on an expedited basis," a Microsoft representative said. "It's appropriate that this matter be decided by the circuit court before we would be required to move forward with implementing the injunction."

In a statement sent to reporters, Sun's vice president of legal affairs Lee Patch said: "We regret the 4th Circuit Court's decision. The preliminary injunctions granted by the district court will benefit consumers and the Java community's developers, enterprises and system vendors."

News source: c|net

Sun has sued its rival for $1 billion, claiming Microsoft had tried to thwart the commercial success of Java in hopes of establishing .Net as an alternative. "The district court found that Microsoft's anticompetitive acts are tipping the market toward .Net," Patch said.

In its emergency request to the 4th Circuit, Microsoft asked the appeals court to place Motz's order on hold, calling it "extreme and unprecedented."

Last week, Sun argued in a legal brief that the appeals court should not intervene. "Microsoft's unsupported claim that its next shipping date for Windows may be adversely affected, absent a stay, is similarly unconvincing in light of the order's 120-day period for compliance," Sun said in a 25-page filing. "The order does not require Microsoft to ship the (Java Runtime Environment) in any product until June 4, two months after the proposed expedited hearing date."

Hide additional information

About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline

Total votes: 0

Bookmark on del.icio.us

Advertisement

#1 Posted by Divide Overflow on 04 Feb 2003 - 04:11: Well. . to rehash the whole Sun-MS Java debate, Sun's Windows Java client is the slowest piece of trash I've ever seen. Microsoft's version of the Java client may not be to Sun's spec, but it sure as hell runs a lot faster. *sigh* Microsoft shouldn't have tried to tweak the language itself. I don't think Sun would have bitched nearly as much if MS had simply optimized the client code itself. Of course MS had to change things to fit how they think Java should work. .

#2 Posted by Eric Ferleman on 04 Feb 2003 - 04:14: Aww yeah! Sweet! I don't want Suns buggy code on any pc I buy. Good going Microsoft!

(2 replies) #3 Posted by kennisonxgs on 04 Feb 2003 - 04:26: They should just stop forcing it on people. Leave Java out of the OS and put MS's Java and Sun's Java side by side in a download page and let people pick. Jeez.

(3 replies) #4 Posted by Edge on 04 Feb 2003 - 04:32: Go Microsoft!

#5 Posted by DrOmango on 04 Feb 2003 - 04:45: w00t yea!

(1 reply) #6 Posted by malebolgia on 04 Feb 2003 - 05:23: [quote]Sun has sued its rival for $1 billion, claiming Microsoft had tried to thwart the commercial success of Java in hopes of establishing .Net as an alternative.[/quote] Update .NET is the alternative!

(1 reply) #7 Posted by xStainDx on 04 Feb 2003 - 06:31: I'm sorry was there something that was called Service Pack 1a?? I apologize but that was just accidental typo on our web-site, the pack actually never existed !! Take That Sun!! GO MICROSOFT!!

#8 Posted by finalcoolman on 04 Feb 2003 - 07:09: Since Microsoft got the stay on the Sun order, why didn't Microsoft take SP1a off the site and reinstitute SP1? Also, when is the appeal court date?

(2 replies) #9 Posted by AnotherEric on 04 Feb 2003 - 07:17: Looks like I share the opinion of my fellow netizens. I do want to add that, as a developer, I used to think Java was right up there with sliced bread when it came to what we have accomplished. That was until it occured to me that Sun's legal department was, quite possibly, much larger than its R&D department. It is too bad they couldn't just stop thier whining and move on. Just think of what Sun's Java runtime may have become had those resources been given to developers rather than the corporate attorneys. Such a loss.

(1 reply) #10 Posted by Zerosignull on 04 Feb 2003 - 10:07: well looks like u are all in tune with the facts here again. *Sun sued MS because MS was makming windows only extentions for jarva defeating the main purpose of jarva and that is to run on many platforms with the same code. *Sun java 1.4 is not buggy and works fine. try installing it propely. I have it working in both mozilla and IE flawlessly. *MS jarva VM is haneously out of date. it only suports version 1.1 of the jarva API.

(4 replies) #11 Posted by MitchShrader on 04 Feb 2003 - 11:09: um, MS java, Sun Java, well.. they aren't compatible now are they? Wasn't that the point of the order? Make 'cross platform' compatibility a requirement? agreed Sun Java is buggy on MS machines, but.. its LESS buggy than incompatible java that MS has tried to foist off on folks. The court order is / was silly but less silly than most. Go Sun. Go FAR.. Don't come back without a bugless Java! boo billy, you cheat!

(2 replies) #12 Posted by Tom Servo on 04 Feb 2003 - 12:51: I don't know what that BS is about anyway. Sun is blaming MS to push .NET by excluding Java. Uhm, like, you have to download the framework seperately too? And it's even larger than the JRE? So what? Sun are whiners.

(1 reply) #13 Posted by slap on 04 Feb 2003 - 13:01: Having installed quite a few machines over the years, my experience is that the Sun Java version is slower [feels more bloggy] and more incompatible with the sites i visit regularly. I am aware that this is probably due to poor or MSjava-programming, but as long as people develop their web sites that way, I'm staying with the MSjava version. Why can't they let people choose for themselves? This is pissing me off.

#14 Posted by jl7c2 on 04 Feb 2003 - 20:50: When you let people choose, they may choose the wrong thing, being that they are uninformed. "Oh, its from Microsoft so it must be good!" Wrong! When people choose MS "Java" (in quotes cause it's one skewed version), and it becomes popular, the software developers program according to the skewed version. We aren't getting anywhere using skewed, outdated, and insecure software. We remain in the '95 days. We need to look ahead at what's best for computing. Go with the standards. That's why I use Phoenix to browse the web. It complies to the standards verbatim. What's popular is IE, so that's what html developers program around, but they do it wrong! The MS web site has about 100 errors on it! Comply to the standards. It is the only way we can make advancements in computing. I wish I could share some of my Java proggies, but I can't cause all you MS people use their VM. My apps use the extremely powerful Swing, only found in the true, real, Java CREATED by Sun. BTW, when was the last time you all tried Sun's Java? They now have 1.4.1! It is fast and stable! Dont judge something on what you may have used 3 years ago! Sun, claim what is yours! Don't let uninformed and ignorant MS fanboys take over your product! I'm sorry I get so worked up about this. It just pisses me off when people are so BLATANTLY wrong!

Last edited by 17978 on 04 Feb 2003 - 22:59

#15 Posted by fdiaz2day on 04 Feb 2003 - 21:02: Voodoo nice job on the link to winebta.org

[1]

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Scroll to the Top