| TIP: Click on subject to list as thread! | ANSI |
| echo: | |
|---|---|
| to: | |
| from: | |
| date: | |
| subject: | Re: Court strikes down Sun ruling |
From: "Rich"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00B8_01C33F30.E3060AF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tony's discussion of Sun's distribution is incomplete. Internal Sun =
documents presented in the case showed that for a few million dollars = Sun
could have had it's Java implementation distributed by OEMs on = almost all
PCs. They explicitly chose not to do this. Sun can't make a = good claim
that anyone else is responsible for their own decision not to = distribute
their Java implementation more widely.
From the transcript of the appeal's court hearing at =
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/java/04-03-03AppealsCourtTranscript.do=
c.
And again, the study from, it's Exhibit 18, it's at 943 of the =
appendix, Sun's study about distribution indicated that on its own, for = a
minimum cost -- this is a company with revenues last year of more than =
$12 billion -- that for less than $4 million, Sun could have gotten =
distribution on more than 95% of new PCs.
More on this from the appeal brief at =
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/java/02-12-03MSAppealBrief.pdf
Indeed, Sun had a feasible and affordable plan for obtaining nearly
"ubiquitous" distribution for Java, but elected not to pursue it. On =
May 9, 2002 -
after moving for its preliminary injunction - a lengthy Sun memo =
described a
"Java Plug-In Distribution Plan." (DX18.) This was a plan for =
"[e]nsuring that
>95% of PCs have a Java enabled default browser," and it suggested =
several ways
to "[s]olve" Sun's distribution needs. (Id.,0908.) The projected cost =
of putting
Java on 95% of new PCs was $3.65 million per year. (Id.,0946.)
At the hearing, Richard Green of Sun testified that the May 2002 Plan
had not been implemented because Sun had more recently developed a =
better plan
that was just being "rolled out" and that costs Sun nothing - in fact, =
Sun is "being
paid money" by OEMs under the new plan. (12/3Tr.239, 242.) Green =
conceded
that he sought an order compelling Microsoft to provide free =
distribution on "a
hundred percent of new PCs" even "before the outcome of the current =
plan
becomes known." (12/3Tr.245.)
Rich
"Robert Comer" wrote in message =
news:3f008613{at}w3.nls.net...
> Sun gives the JVM's away free for download, MS did nothing to =
inhibit
people from getting Java product through non-MS means. Why
> would any company distribute 3rd party product that doesn't align =
with its
long term strategy?
Oh say, the court orders them to do so maybe?
> IMO, if damage can't be quantified, then it doesn't exist. If =
damage
doesn't exist, then no remedy is required.
That's where I disagree -- just because you can't put a hard dollar =
figure
on it doesn't mean that harm has not occurred. The computer sw =
industry is
to dynamic to allow as hard a numbers as you are looking for. =
Microsoft was
found guilty of antitrust violations without a hard number...
- Bob Comer
"Tony Ingenoso" wrote in message
news:3f007fb9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Robert Comer" wrote in message
news:3eff39ad$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > With no revenue possible from a distribution channel of free =
product,
Sun
> > wasn't damaged in the legal sense.
> >
> > That's just part of the Java market and you KNOW that -- if the =
JVM's
aren't
> > distributed, just how many companies are going to pay the =
licensing fees
or
> > the costs for the development tools...
>
> Sun gives the JVM's away free for download, MS did nothing to =
inhibit
people from getting Java product through non-MS means. Why
> would any company distribute 3rd party product that doesn't align =
with its
long term strategy?
>
> > > I also wonder about the slippery slope involved in forcing some
company to
> > pay licence >fees for a product it doesn't want to support
> > > or distribute.
> >
> > I agree with that, but just what other possible punishment could =
work
> > here -- suggest an effective alternative.
>
> I question the need for "punishment", because nobody has been able =
to
demonstrate any concrete financial damage to Sun so far. Had
> there been some sort of exclusive distribution channel agreements =
with per
unit shipped kickbacks to Sun or something like that,
> that were violated before their contractual expirations, THEN Sun =
might
have a case that they were damaged. IMO, the whole notion
> that Sun was damaged somehow outside the bounds normal behavior for =
this
industry simply hasn't been proven. A judge should have
> been able to say - OK, Sun you were damaged $(insert figure here)M/B =
by
some illegal MS action. So far NOBODY has been able to
> provide that figure or even a guess as to its possible magnitude. =
Based
on evidence I've seen so far, I believe it to be $0.00 in
> reality.
>
> IMO, if damage can't be quantified, then it doesn't exist. If =
damage
doesn't exist, then no remedy is required.
>
>
>
>
>
------=_NextPart_000_00B8_01C33F30.E3060AF0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tony's
discussion of Sun's =
distribution is incomplete. Internal Sun documents presented in =
the case=20
showed that for a few million dollars Sun could have had it's Java=20
implementation distributed by OEMs on almost all PCs. They =
explicitly=20
chose not to do this. Sun can't make a good claim that anyone else = is=20
responsible for their own decision not to distribute their Java=20
implementation more widely.
From the
transcript of the =
appeal's=20
court hearing at * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)SEEN-BY: 633/267 270 @PATH: 379/45 1 633/267 |
|
| SOURCE: echomail via fidonet.ozzmosis.com | |
Email questions or comments to sysop@ipingthereforeiam.com
All parts of this website painstakingly hand-crafted in the U.S.A.!
IPTIA BBS/MUD/Terminal/Game Server List, © 2025 IPTIA Consulting™.