Court overturns injunction against Microsoft

Microsoft does not have to include a rival’s software in its Windows operating system, a US appeals court ruled in overturning a judge’s order.

Though the court upheld a preliminary injunction barring Microsoft from distributing its own version of Java from Sun Microsystems, that requirement will have limited effect because Microsoft already has started phasing it out under a previous settlement with Sun.

The unanimous decision by the three-judge appeals panel represents an overall victory for Microsoft in its drawn-out legal battle with Sun over Java. It vacates a December ruling by US District Judge Frederick Motz in Baltimore.

“It validates the notion that they do not have to use their operating system as a springboard platform for other companies’ initiatives like Java,” said Michael Gartenberg, research director for Jupiter Research.

Sun’s case is one of four private antitrust lawsuits filed against Microsoft after another federal judge ruled, in a case initiated by the Justice Department and 18 US states, that Microsoft acted as an illegal monopoly based on its dominance in desktop operating systems.

Sun, based in Santa Clara, California, had argued that Microsoft gained an unfair advantage by shipping Windows – used on more than 90% of the world’s personal computers – with an outdated version of Java that’s inconsistent for its users.

Judge Motz accepted Sun’s argument that waiting until the antitrust case is resolved could permanently kill Java, a technology designed to let programmers write software to run on all types of computers, whether they use Windows, Apple’s Mac OS or another operating system.

So he ordered Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft to include the latest version of Java in the Windows XP operating system.

The appeals court struck down the order, saying Sun failed to demonstrate the “immediate irreparable harm”. It determined the present and future harm to Sun as too general or speculative.

“Neither harm ... has been shown to be legally sufficient,” Judge Paul V. Niemeyer wrote.

But the court upheld Judge Motz’s order “prohibiting Microsoft from distributing products that infringe Sun’s copyright interests”, including Microsoft’s own version of Java.

Mr Gartenberg, the analyst, termed it “a bit of a rebuke that if you are going to include Java it has to be what Sun defines as Java, not what Microsoft defines as Java. You can’t co-opt someone else’s work”.

Lee Patch, Sun’s vice president for legal affairs, said the copyright ruling “confirms that Microsoft violated our prior settlement agreement, and that it did so in a way that continued to fragment the Java platform on PCs”.

Mr Patch said the decision on the other injunction will prolong its antitrust case against Microsoft.

Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said the company was pleased with the ruling and noted that the company has already started phasing out its own version of Java.

“Our focus really has been to move beyond these conflicts and to work collaboratively with the rest of the industry,” he said.

Sun’s lawsuit is one of the highest-profile antitrust cases remaining against Microsoft, which also faces a challenge from the state of Massachusetts after the federal government and 17 other states settled.