Sun is pinning its hopes on a June 2001 ruling in the Justice Department antitrust case. In that decision, a federal appeals court ruled that Microsoft had illegally tried to maintain its operating system monopoly in an attempt to eradicate competitive products such as Java and Netscape's Web browser. In October, Judge Motz indicated that he would allow Sun to use some of those earlier legal conclusions in the current lawsuit. Sun's case also builds on its previous legal assault on its rival, which began in October 1997 and alleged that Microsoft violated its licence agreement by distributing incompatible versions of Java and deceptively promoted those versions as compatible. The two companies settled in January 2001, with Microsoft agreeing to pay Sun $20m. Much of Sun's current case relies on predictions, saying that if Microsoft had not wielded its market power so ruthlessly, Java would have been more successful. "But for Microsoft's unlawful fragmentation of the Java platform and its unlawful attack on the distribution of the Navigator and Java platforms, the installed base of these alternative platforms would have been far greater today," Sun said in court documents. Sun argues that Microsoft is now trying to supplement -- or even replace -- its Windows monopoly by encouraging developers to write code for the .Net platform instead. In addition, Sun says: "Microsoft has refused to port Office to competing platforms in order to illegally maintain its monopoly," and to "force" consumers to purchase products such as Microsoft Exchange Server, Microsoft Internet Information Server and Microsoft SQL Server. "Sun is seeking the court's assistance to force its version of Java through a distribution channel," Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said. "It gives them a leg up on competition not just against Microsoft, but others in the industry." Microsoft's own arguments, submitted in a series of filings with the court, say that: "Sun can cite no antitrust case that has ever granted a mandatory injunction before trial on a preliminary injunction motion." In addition, Microsoft claims Sun waited approximately four years to file this lawsuit, any monopoly Microsoft has was lawfully obtained, and that Sun's proposal is nearly identical to one that Judge Kollar-Kotelly considered and rejected.
See the Software News Section for the latest headlines on everything from peer-to-peer clients to Office software and beyond.
Have your say instantly, and see what others have said. Go to the ZDNet news forum.
Let the editors know what you think in the Mailroom.
Talkback
When an individual can turn on his or her computer and have the choice of operating system and choice of office system presented on the opening screen then I will believe that the computer I purchased will be my own personal property free of any licensing agreements forced on the consumer because there are no other choices economically available to the average computer user.