Java Software Division president feels heat from Microsoft lawyers in Java case

Alan Baratz, president of Sun Microsystems Inc.’s Java Software Division, came under heavy fire from Microsoft Corp. lawyers last week during the second day of hearings in Sun’s Java lawsuit against the software giant. The hearings were held in the District Courthouse in San Jose, CA.

In almost an hour of pointed cross-examination, Microsoft lawyers grilled Baratz on his negotiations with Microsoft executives over the final wording of the Java licensing contract Microsoft signed with Sun in March 1996.

Microsoft’s lawyers badgered Baratz over what they said are inconsistencies between remarks he made in a deposition statement filed with the court last week, and testimony he gave in court earlier today.

“That was not one of the most pleasant experiences I’ve ever been through,” Baratz said afterwards, standing outside the courtroom here at the San Jose District Court.

Sun’s lawsuit charges Microsoft with violating the terms of its Java licensing contract by creating Java products that do not conform to the specifications laid down in its contract with Sun. Sun’s suit also accuses Microsoft of acting anticompetitively in its alleged bid to derail Sun’s Java strategy.

Microsoft denies the charges vehemently, and insists that it has met its obligations to Sun as defined in the licensing agreement.

Baratz’s testimony came on the second day of evidentiary hearings in Sun’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit, which, if granted, would require Microsoft to stop shipping its Windows 98 operating system and Java development tools until they conform to Sun’s Java specifications.

Under questioning earlier in the day by Sun’s own lawyers, Baratz complained that Microsoft is “flooding the market with incompatible Java products.”

“They have created a divergent version of the technology,” Baratz told the court. “They have made that divergent version dependent on their tools, their runtime (Java virtual machine), and their operating system.”

Contradicting testimony offered the day before by Microsoft Senior Vice President of Tools and Applications Robert Muglia, Baratz denied that Sun had agreed to allow Microsoft to define certain programming interfaces in its Java products without Sun’s approval. Baratz also denied Muglia’s claim that Sun gave Microsoft permission to add extensions to the Java programming language.

Muglia told Baratz that Microsoft wanted to license the Java technology “to be able to compete with Netscape, which had already incorporated the technology in their browser,” Baratz told the crowded courtroom. Meanwhile, Sun would benefit from the deal by seeing its Java technology widely distributed with Microsoft’s products, Baratz said.

Sun’s counsel on several occasions asked Baratz what products Microsoft was required to deliver under the terms of its Java contract. Microsoft’s lawyers objected to the question each time, saying that Baratz was not entitled to offer the court his “subjective understanding” of the contract.

Judge Whyte agreed and told Baratz he could only answer such questions by reading from the licensing agreement or pointing to sections in it.

Under cross-examination, Microsoft’s lawyers forced Baratz to admit to what they said were inconsistencies between a deposition he made last week and statements made in court today.

For example, Baratz said the week before the hearings that he was unable to say whether or not handwriting in the margins of a draft version of the licensing contract belonged to Sun Vice President Jim Clary. But in the courtroom, Baratz identified a sample of handwriting he was shown as probably being Clary’s.

In a brief meeting with reporters outside the courtroom afterwards, Baratz said that since making that deposition a week ago he had looked over draft versions of the licensing contract, which had refreshed his memory of the negotiations.

Testifying earlier that day, Sun Vice President and Fellow James Gosling, who is credited with creating Java, told the court that Microsoft has added extensions to the Java language that compromise the ability of its tools to write cross-platform applications.

Java software applications built using the company’s Visual J++ development tool will only run properly on Microsoft’s Java virtual machine, and not on virtual machines available from Netscape Communications Corp., Symantec Corp., and others, Gosling said.

Under cross-examination, Gosling acknowledged that Microsoft’s development tools include a “mode switch,” which allows developers to make a choice between writing applications using only Java and writing Windows-specific applications that use both Java and C code.

Microsoft attorney Karl Quackenbush asked Gosling if he didn’t think software developers are smart enough to make up their own minds about what types of applications they want to write using Microsoft’s tool.

“Developers are a pretty savvy bunch, wouldn’t you agree with me?” Quackenbush asked.

“Hmm, well,” Gosling said, drawing laughter from the court. “I think ‘savvy’ is saying a little much.”

Gosling often declined to answer Quackenbush’s directions directly, complaining they were imprecise. Judge Whyte intervened at one point and told Gosling to answer the questions more directly, noting that Microsoft had limited time to question its witnesses. (For more on the technical tidbits of Gosling’s testimony, see Bill Day’s article in this issue of JavaWorld: “Java’s creator discusses technology of Sun-Microsoft lawsuit”.)