Sun makes “The Big Move”

In 1972, Richard Nixon decided to make “the big move.” With the war in Vietnam raging and America’s younger generation in open revolt, the U.S. president decided to meet with Chairman Mao in Beijing and open a new front in the diplomatic war. At the time, only an old anti-Communist like Nixon could have made such a bold move and gotten away with it. Henry Kissinger, always both student and maker of history, knew that when the balance of power rests on three strong nations (in this case, the U.S., China, and the Soviet Union), there is always another big move to be made. Three-legged stools are only stable when the legs are of roughly equal size.

In the software industry there is only one great power: Microsoft. Even Upside, the People magazine of Silicon Valley, has declared Bill Gates the victor in the Java wars. Periodically, the non-Microsoft rabble forms itself into a temporary coalition around some technology or application — X-Windows, PowerPC, and merged Unix — before infighting fragments the opposition. So far, with Java, JavaBeans, and JDBC, it’s been a different story: The non-Microsoft players have followed orders, believing a victory could create untold wealth for all. There have been squabbles, of course. Netscape and Sun’s JavaSoft division have jousted over class libraries; database vendors have “innovated” around JDBC. For what it’s worth, however, the non-Microsoft coalition has been remarkably stable — stable but ineffective. In fact, next to Microsoft, it has been at best a second leg on the stool, with the third leg currently missing.

The suit specifics

As the “steward” of the Java language, Sun’s specific claim is that Microsoft, in its latest release of Internet Explorer (IE) 4.0 and the Software Development Kit (SDK) for Java, has violated its contractual obligation to deliver a compatible implementation of Java technology on its products. The complaint charges Microsoft with a range of misdeeds including: trademark infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, unfair competition, interference with prospective economic advantage, and inducing breach of contract. (See the JavaWorld story “Sun-Microsoft dispute gets ugly.”)

The suit revolves around four important claims:

1. IE 4.0 includes changes, additions, and alterations in the java.lang, java.awt, and java.io packages in the standard Java hierarchy.

2. IE 4.0 does not support the Java Native Method Interface (JNI).

3. IE 4.0 does not support Remote Method Invocation (RMI).

4. The Microsoft SDK for Java supports the above changes — not the standard Java platform.

Interestingly enough, the Java Foundation Class (JFC) libraries are not part of the dispute. Sun claims these libraries are not part of the licensee’s current contractual obligations.

Two particularly serious issues are brought up by Sun’s lawsuit: first, that Microsoft violated its license terms by both adding and removing code from the standard Java distribution; second, that Microsoft knowingly attempted to mislead developers by adding code to the standard hierarchy (.lang, .awt, .io), making it more difficult for developers to understand what code is portable and what is Windows- or IE 4.0-specific.

Jon Bain, principal of Intangibles, Ltd., an intellectual property consulting firm that specializes in software, considers the trademark component of Sun’s case a strong one. “The Java brand belongs to Sun,” said Bain. Perhaps the more compelling aspect of the case is the possibility that Microsoft will attempt to clone the Java language under another name. “The issue of whether you can copyright a language specification is unsettled. In the case of Java, Microsoft would need to clone not only the language, but the virtual machine as well,” said Bain.

“There are several potential outcomes to the case,” Bain pointed out, “however, forcing Microsoft to ship software it does not wish to ship is almost certainly not one of them.” If he is right, then Sun potentially could be the recipient of a significant settlement, but the case is not likely to lead to a unified Java.

Whatever the outcome of the litigation, the Microsoft/Sun dispute actually is more of a business matter than a legal one. A legal victory for Sun that makes Microsoft choose between losing use of the word “Java” and shipping a fully “Sun-compliant” version of the software is a Phyrric victory. Rather than comply with a rival’s standard, Microsoft, almost certainly, will choose to use a new name. Unless another strong voice enters the dispute, and applies pressure on Microsoft, there will be two Javas — or rather one Java and a competing technology by another name.

The third leg of the stool: Who can save Java?

Only three constituencies really can mandate a single, common Java. These are: a strong users’ group, the United States government, or the European Union.

The Java Lobby

Rick Ross launched the Java Lobby Web site on August 11 of this year, and the organization is rapidly approaching 10,000 members. (For information on the Java Lobby, see the JavaWorld article in last month’s issue, “Microsoft’s ‘Java Evangelist’ responds to Java Lobby requests.”) As the Web site indicates, the community represented by the Java Lobby is:

“a group of people who share a common interest in Java software development and the advancement of Java standards and software. The main purpose of the Java Lobby is to represent the needs and concerns of the Java developer and user community to the companies and organizations who have influence in the evolution of Java.”

There is a moral, almost religious tone to the site that goes beyond its technology focus. Ross has said that “Java is the single most important technology to innovate.” In his view, the software industry is coming to a fork in the road, with the choice being between taking one approach from one company or going for “an open environment and open world in which the individual still matters.” However, the group will need more than numbers and enthusiasm to advance its aims. Corporate purchasing departments are the constituency that matters to most software vendors. Even 10,000 developers usually count for less than one globally significant company that is making a purchasing decision for its entire international operations. To succeed as a powerful voice, the Java Lobby will need to sign on corporate sponsors, not just individual developers.

The U.S. Federal governement

One organization that can get the attention of any company with a single letter is the United States Federal government. Earlier attempts by the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to censure Microsoft (and Intel) for anti-competitive practices resulted in a slap on the wrist for both companies. On September 24 Intel disclosed that the FTC had launched a broad investigation into whether Intel was in violation of antitrust laws. Industry watchers say that, unlike earlier efforts, this new probe packs some firepower. The agency has issued sweeping subpoenas to a host of Intel customers and competitors, and the FTC’s most senior officials are involved in the investigation. Will a newly emboldened FTC take another look at Microsoft? Java would provide an interesting foundation for a new probe.

Many will say that the U.S. Federal government always will prefer a U.S. monopoly to fair and open international competition. As long as this country remains the dominant power in the software business, through Microsoft’s might, why try to change the competitive landscape? After all, monopolies built the U.S. railroad system in the nineteenth century and the telephone and oil industries in the twentieth century. Will this mitigate against the FTC’s newfound antitrust fervor?

The European Union

Surely the European Union does not feel the same way as the U.S. Microsoft has done a good job of presenting an international face, but it is a company that exemplifies the quintessential American dream. The Microsoft monopoly in computer operating systems puts some limits on the ability of Europe and Asia to dominate the software industry. Java could create a more level playing field, and surely this is in the interest of all of the G7 powers (except perhaps, the U.S.). As the EU countries get their governments in financial shape for a common currency, an action against Microsoft might provide a popular diversion.

Conclusion

So, only Nixon could go to China? If the symmetry were perfect, one would expect Scott McNealy to meet Bill Gates at a Starbucks in Seattle. That could happen, but before it does, another major power must enter the fray with an additional “big move.” There are several self-styled contenders, including the Java Lobby, but only the FTC and the EU really matter. If one of them is thinking about going to Redmond, WA, it had better get there soon. When it does, it may want to bring a Vulcan with it. Given the dominance of Microsoft, a few Klingons wouldn’t hurt either.