Microsoft Goes After Sun's Motives

Sun Microsystems saw Microsoft's decision to stop supporting Sun's Java programming language — a subject of Microsoft's ongoing antitrust case and a private suit by Sun — as an opportunity to highlight Microsoft's "hostile business practices."

The company's strategy was outlined in internal documents produced by Microsoft Tuesday during the second day of an antitrust trial in which nine states are seeking tough penalties against Microsoft.

Sun officials wrote about plans to "reinforce Java's benefits," "distribute through new channels" and "rally public opinion against Microsoft's hostile business practices."

A Microsoft lawyer, Steven Holley, asked a Sun executive about the documents in an attempt to show that Sun's efforts to force Microsoft to carry an industry standard version of Java would only benefit Sun itself, rather than consumers.

Sun Vice President Richard Green said the company and consumers would have been better served if Microsoft kept support for Java in Microsoft's latest Windows XP operating system.

"You have lemons, you have to make some lemonade here," Green said.

Holley also produced Sun documents that assert that three top corporations — brokerage firm Merrill Lynch, news service Reuters and the electronics giant Thomson — prefer Microsoft's comparable tools to those of Sun.

"All three customers expressed a lack of faith in Sun's ability to perform, especially in the areas where we are directly competitive with Microsoft," the Sun document stated.

Green said he wasn't aware of the criticism and the company has received a lot of positive feedback as well.

Microsoft has long accused its rivals, including Sun, Oracle and AOL Time Warner, of using the courts for business gain.

The nine states asked U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on Monday to force Microsoft to create a stripped-down version of its flagship Windows software that could incorporate competitors' features. The states also want Microsoft to divulge the blueprints for its Internet Explorer browser.

The federal government and several other states settled their claims with Microsoft last year.

The original judge in the antitrust case, Thomas Penfield Jackson, ordered Microsoft to be broken up into two companies after concluding Microsoft violated antitrust laws by illegally stifling its competitors.

A federal appeals court reversed that penalty and appointed Kollar-Kotelly to determine a new penalty.

The states on Monday cited internal Microsoft memos as evidence the software company had persisted in strong-arming competitors even as it was being found guilty of antitrust violations.

Dell Computer had plans to put Linux, a free operating system that competes with Windows, on some of its computers in 2000, the states' lawyers said. But Dell abandoned the plans under pressure from Microsoft, they said.

Steven Kuney, a lawyer for the states, cited an internal document that laid out talking points for a meeting between Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer and Dell executives.

Microsoft would give "a reminder of the meat behind why it's smart to be partnered with," the document stated. "It's untenable for our 'Premier Partner' on Windows 2000 to be doing aggressive market development for another operating system," the talking points said.

By June 2001, Dell laid off its head Linux employee and reassigned the rest of his team.

The states that rejected the government's settlement with Microsoft and have continued to pursue the antitrust case are Iowa, Utah, Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, Kansas, Florida, Minnesota and West Virginia. The District of Columbia also rejected the settlement.

The proposed federal settlement would prevent Microsoft from retaliating against partners for using non-Microsoft products; require the company to disclose a limited number of its software blueprints so software developers can make compatible products; and make it easier for consumers to remove icons for extra Windows features.

The deal is not final until it is approved by Kollar-Kotelly, who is handling the settlement and the state trial as separate proceedings.