t 'n t luoma

This just in.... my comments in [ ] below... excerpts only from source: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-978786.html

A U.S. district court judge on Monday ordered Microsoft to include Sun Microsystems’ version of Java with the Windows operating system, citing the software giant’s history of undermining the platform-neutral programming language. [Not to mention Netscape, WordPerfect, and a host of others.... Not to mention sacrificing MP3 for its own WMA]

“I find it an absolute certainty that unless a preliminary injunction is entered, Sun will have lost forever its right to compete, and the opportunity to prevail, in a market undistorted by its competitor’s antitrust violations,” Motz wrote in the 42-page ruling.

“Unless Sun is given a fair opportunity to compete in a market untainted by the effects of Microsoft’s past antitrust violations [Remember that they were found guilty of that, it was the remedy that was up for debate], there is a serious risk that in the near future the market will tip in favor of .Net, that it is impossible to ascertain when such tipping might occur in time to prevent it from happening, and that if the market does tip in favor of .Net, Sun could not be adequately compensated in damages.”

“While...deliberately fragmenting the Java platform to make it less attractive for developers and users, Microsoft also successfully embarked upon a campaign to destroy Sun’s channels of distribution,” Motz wrote. “Microsoft has succeeded, through its antitrust violations, in creating an environment in which the distribution of PCs is chaotic and the Java runtimes on PCs are incompatible.”

In the decision, the judge cited Sun’s request that Microsoft “set up Sun’s most current Java runtime environment to be installed by default on any product containing .Net, including Windows XP...and Internet Explorer.” [seems clear enough]

The ruling can hardly be a surprise to Microsoft. Motz gave some clue to his thinking earlier this month when he compared Microsoft’s treatment of Sun to figure skater Tonya Harding’s 1994 attack on competitor Nancy Kerrigan in advance of the Olympic Games. [Ouch...]

But industry trade group the Association for Competitive Technology [I think it is a safe bet to assume that these folks are probably funded by Microsoft... at least they didn’t call it “innovative”] took a dim view of the injunction, calling it anticompetitive.

This is good news for those truly interested in competition.