A federal appeals court judge on Thursday expressed serious doubts about a lower-court order requiring Microsoft to incorporate Sun Microsystems’ Java programming language in the Windows operating system. Judge Paul Niemeyer, one of the three judges hearing Microsoft's appeal, sharply questioned whether the must-carry preliminary injunction was needed to prevent imminent harm to Sun and the Java program while a trial was conducted. Niemeyer, who dominated questioning during an hour of presentations from both sides, also criticized the legal basis of the injunction issued late last year by U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore.
The injunction, put on hold by the appeals court, was based on findings that Microsoft was illegally maintaining a monopoly via the Windows operating system for personal computers. But Niemeyer said Java was “middleware” rather than an operating system and that the injunction should have rested on a monopoly extension claim. Sun attorney Rusty Day tried to argue the distinction was not consequential under antitrust law, and in any case, Sun sold server software that directly competed with Windows.
“If that's your theory...it seems to me the District Court missed it all,” Niemeyer said. Santa Clara, Calif.-based Sun charges that Microsoft has tried to sabotage Java, which can run on a variety of operating systems, because it threatens the dominance of the Windows OS. Sun, which is seeking $1 billion in damages, charges Microsoft's acts against Java include polluting a version of the software and dropping it from Windows XP. There was no indication when the appeals court might rule.
View: The full story
News source: ZDNet
The injunction, put on hold by the appeals court, was based on findings that Microsoft was illegally maintaining a monopoly via the Windows operating system for personal computers. But Niemeyer said Java was “middleware” rather than an operating system and that the injunction should have rested on a monopoly extension claim. Sun attorney Rusty Day tried to argue the distinction was not consequential under antitrust law, and in any case, Sun sold server software that directly competed with Windows.
“If that's your theory...it seems to me the District Court missed it all,” Niemeyer said. Santa Clara, Calif.-based Sun charges that Microsoft has tried to sabotage Java, which can run on a variety of operating systems, because it threatens the dominance of the Windows OS. Sun, which is seeking $1 billion in damages, charges Microsoft's acts against Java include polluting a version of the software and dropping it from Windows XP. There was no indication when the appeals court might rule.
View: The full story News source: ZDNet
The settlement, endorsed in November by U.S. District Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly in November, resolved the federal government's charges that Microsoft abused its monopoly in personal computer operating systems.
Terms of the settlement were designed to give computer makers greater freedom to feature rival browsers such as AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Netscape Navigator, as well as other non-Microsoft software, by allowing them to hide some Microsoft icons on the Windows desktop.
Microsoft is prohibited from retaliating under the settlement against computer makers who choose to feature non-Microsoft products. Nor could it enter into agreements that require the exclusive support of some Microsoft software.
Mike Pettit, a spokesman for Procomp, an anti-Microsoft computer industry trade group, said the latest modification was minor. He called it "a complete waste of time and effort and has nothing to do with restoring competition."
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.