Java’s James Gosling is Wrong. Free Software Advocates Never Suggested or Insinuated That Money-Making Was Ethically Wrong.

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Java at 9:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Go proprietary software because might makes right

Summary: The honorable James Gosling mischaracterises the stance of Free software advocacy, portraying it like it is an issue of money rather than respect for users

THE best way to attack a popular movement is to distort or misrepresent its beliefs, views, goals and so on. Black Lives Matters, for instance, is described by some people as a “terror group” because of the action/s of one or two people (among millions).

First, a clarification: I myself make money (or a living) only from Free software. It does not pay a lot of money, but it helps keep the site going and it puts food on the table, without having to resort to unethical practices with immoral software. I know that it’s perfectly feasible to make ends meet without getting involved in proprietary software. Many Free software developers whom I speak to say and do the same. They’re not very wealthy; heck, some are relatively poor, but they’re happy with what they do. Unless you spend decades working as a Microsoft mole (e.g. Miguel de Icaza), you’re not very likely to become a millionaire.

“Unless you spend decades working as a Microsoft mole (e.g. Miguel de Icaza), you’re not very likely to become a millionaire.”And then there are some high-profile success stories, other than Red Hat. How about Canonical’s founder? Mr. Shuttleworth showed that you can become a billionaire with Free software, even at a very young age (he was quite prolific in the Debian-Private mailing lists before he sold his company and became one of the richest South Africans, who like Elon Musk left the country). As one article recalls [1]: “Shuttleworth left South Africa for the Isle of Man in 2001, taking a small proportion of his substantial fortune with him. The rest remained in South Africa in a block loan account. Eight years later he attempted to move a further ZAR2.5 billion offshore, but in the meantime, the South African Finance Ministry had issued a circular imposing exchange controls on the removal from the country of sums exceeding ZAR750,000. Shuttleworth duly applied to the Reserve Bank to exchange the funds. The bank imposed a 10 per cent exit charge on the transfer.”

Another article [2] put it like this: “What’s in a name? Mark Shuttleworth, it turns out, was indeed shuttle worthy. When the superrich computer nerd rocketed off into the cold black nothingness of God’s armpit, he apparently behaved like a proper astronaut—although he puked a bit of orange juice, he didn’t go acid-trippy like in 2001: A Space Odyssey, even though it was actually 2001. South Africa’s second most famous internet billionaire dropped $20 million to become one of the world’s first space tourists, a trip he treated himself to after selling his Thawte Consulting to VeriSign for $575 million in the heady dot.com boom days of 1999. And what did Shuttleworth learn as he stared into the icy void and contemplated his own insignificance in the face of the Infinite Mother?”

“Like many other superrich businessmen (usually but not always those people are male), he doesn’t like to pay his fair share of tax.”The VeriSign deal made him a billionaire from a South African perspective and currency. Later he was bickering about his taxes/levies. Like many other superrich businessmen (usually but not always those people are male), he doesn’t like to pay his fair share of tax. But either way, he was a rich man back then and he remains very rich to this day.

There’s also the obscenely rich Linux Foundation, which does not even use Linux itself, it’s just milking Torvalds and his brand. It shows the absurd intent and immorality of proprietary software types, enriching themselves at the expense (or backs) of those who do all the heavy lifting.

Unlike the Foundation, there’s a community-led effort which registered as a non profit [3] and from their latest publicly-available filing: “We held our annual conference on OCTOBER 12, 2018 and OCTOBER 12, 2018. On October 12, we had seven all day professional tutorials for systems administrators to gain hands on instruction and deeper understanding of Free Software in addition to a track of talks on the mainstage. On October 12, we held an expo for attendees to learn about free software projects and 6 tracks of talks, including a track for career development.”

About $50k and breaking even. Not bad. At least they cover the expenses that they have. Then, outside GNU/Linux, we also have the FreeBSD Foundation, which pays or paid its executive rank about $150k a year [4]. Usually they spend prudently and they’ve so far saved up to about 4 million dollars, having received a lot of money half a decade back. They recently improved their Web site and celebrated a very important birthday.

“It shows the absurd intent and immorality of proprietary software types, enriching themselves at the expense (or backs) of those who do all the heavy lifting.”So now we come to this widely-watched video entitled “Disagreement with Richard Stallman [RMS] about Free Software” (conversation between James Gosling and Lex Fridman). As discussed in IRC yesterday, Gosling is basically wrong. He misframes what RMS actually preaches or publicly says. As Alexei noted, “when I look at companies like PostgresPro and EnterpriseDB, I see them as being all over the place. Which develop free software, they must be in complete poverty. RMS doesn’t employ free software licensing for his speeches. Which is a very concrete practical example of that he does not think “information must be free”. And he said numerous times that he has no objections to the artwork being copyrighted and even pointed it out as a possible monetisation strategy while having the code free. So yes, these people are clearly disagreeing not with RMS, but with a strawRMS they erected themselves in their own minds.”

Gosling suggests that the position of RMS extends to “information must be free” (he talks about software being free — as in freedom — not information). Gosling insinuates that RMS pursues freedom in the sense of gratis, e.g. all movies should be free. But I never saw RMS saying that. Contrariwise, in his DMCA protest he gave a speech saying people should only go watch the films that are really good. RMS talks about freedom of software from an ethical perspective, but Gosling (who really ought to know better) puts or frames that as an economic issue, as if RMS wants to drive him into poverty — to the point where he cannot feed his kids (Mr. Lunduke used a similar attack spiel in an older interview with RMS). This is really, really dishonest.

“Judging by the types of jobs/positions Mr. Gosling has had (and corresponding pay grades), he’s likely a millionaire himself and he left a legacy that’s mostly freedom-respecting (Java). So why attack RMS, whose personal wealth is probably a lot smaller?”“Like I said,” Alexei added, “RMS doesn’t care that much about artwork copyright, that applies to film as well.”

Free software insistence doesn’t mean money cannot and should not be made. In fact, we have plenty of examples where people leveraged Free software to become obscenely rich. Judging by the types of jobs/positions Mr. Gosling has had (and corresponding pay grades), he’s likely a millionaire himself and he left a legacy that’s mostly freedom-respecting (Java). So why attack RMS, whose personal wealth is probably a lot smaller? Seems unnecessary and unfair, as Java uses the licence of RMS (GPL).

  1. South Africa forces billionaire emigrant to pay exit tax | STEP
  2. Shuttleworth, The State and the Ubuntu 2.0
  3. Ohio Linuxfest Corporation – Nonprofit Explorer – ProPublica
  4. The Freebsd Foundation – Nonprofit Explorer – ProPublica


History’s Lesson: Microsoft Now Does to GNU/Linux What It Did to Java (Creating ‘Schism’ to ‘Wrest Control’)

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, Deception, GNU/Linux, Java, Microsoft, Standard, SUN at 11:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Earlier on today: Bill Gates Refers to His Business as “Jihad” and Accuses Java of Being a “Religion” With “Rabid” Supporters

Summary: We take a closer look at what Bill Gates admitted (under pressure, with ‘smoking guns’ to compel him into admission) regarding his rogue tactics

THE Bill Gates deposition is not “old news” per se; many of the things discussed in it prevail to this day as serious issues, including the cult-like mentality. This sort of cult (with terms like “Jihad” used abundantly) is why we end up with something called Linux Foundation whilst actually undermining Linux in a number of ways. Or OSI helping GitHub’s (Microsoft’s) attack on Open Source. The cult generally infiltrates and poisons its opposition.

“This sort of cult (with terms like “Jihad” used abundantly) is why we end up with something called Linux Foundation whilst actually undermining Linux in a number of ways. Or OSI helping GitHub’s (Microsoft’s) attack on Open Source. The cult generally infiltrates and poisons its opposition.”The bits below are a subset of the full text in which the interrogators discuss Microsoft’s attempt at “wrest[ing] control of Java” using “proprietary APIs” (think DirectX in WSL or Microsoft’s bastardisation of GNU/Linux) and deliberate fragmentation (in effect, technical sabotage). See our Java section in the old wiki; it’s still a go-to section for more examples like that. To make things easy for readers to digest we’ve highlighted in yellow some of the relevant bits:

	9				This is an e-mail to you from Ben
10 Slivka dated April 14, 1997. And the subject is,
11 quote, "Java review with you," close quote.
12 (The document referred to was marked as
13 Government Exhibit 372 for identification and is
14 attached hereto.)
15 Q BY MR. BOIES: Did you receive this
16 e-mail in or about April of 1997, Mr. Gates?
17 A I don't remember.
18 Q The e-mail begins that the author is
19 working with Paul Maritz to set up a two -- to
20 three-hour review for you on your Java efforts.
21 Do you see that?
22 A On our Java efforts.
23 Q On Microsoft's Java efforts?
24 A No. I think it's Ben Slivka's group.
25 Q And he is a Microsoft group; right?

1 A Yes. He's part of Microsoft but not
2 all of Microsoft.
3 Q So you would interpret this that he is
4 working with Paul Maritz to set up a two- to
5 three-hour review for you of part of Microsoft's Java
6 efforts but not all of Microsoft's Java efforts; is
7 that what you're saying?
8 A Yeah. The work his group is doing.
9 Q The work his group is doing on Java;
10 right?
11 A Right.
12 Q Okay.
13 And he lists what he describes as some
14 pretty pointed questions that you, Mr. Gates, had
15 about Java.
16 Do you see that?
17 A Well, I'm not sure those are the
18 pointed questions. It says, "I want to make sure I
19 understand your issues/concerns."
20 Q Well, that's actually the last part of
21 a sentence that begins, quote:
22 "When I met with you last,
23 you had a lot of pretty pointed
24 questions about Java, so I want to
25 make sure I understand your

1 issues/concerns."
2 That's what the sentence says; correct,
3 sir?
4 A Right.
5 Q And when Mr. Slivka says "I met with
6 you last," he's talking about you, Mr. Gates; correct
7 sir?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And when he says, "You had a lot of
10 pretty pointed questions about Java," he's again
11 talking about you, Mr. Gates; correct?
12 A Right.
13 Q And then he lists what he refers to as
14 a start:
15 "1. What is our business
16 model for Java?
17 "2. How do we wrest control
18 of Java away from Sun?"

19 Do you see that?
20 A Uh-huh.
21 Q Sometime prior to April 14, 1997, had
22 you conveyed to Mr. Slivka that one of your pointed
23 questions about Java was, quote, "How do we wrest
24 control of Java away from Sun?"

25 A I don't think I would have put it that

1 way. Certainly was an issue about the popularity of
2 Sun's runtime APIs versus our runtime APIs.
3 Q Is it your testimony that you didn't
4 raise the question of "How do we wrest control of
5 Java away from Sun?"
with Mr. Slivka?
6 A I'll say again, I doubt I used words
7 like that. But there certainly was an issue of the
8 popularity of our runtime APIs versus runtime APIs.
9 Q Just so that the record's clear. I'm
10 not asking you about whether there was a question
11 about the popularity of your runtime APIs or their
12 runtime APIs. What I'm asking is whether you told
13 him in words or in substance that you wanted to know
14 how Microsoft could wrest control or get control of
15 Java away from Sun
16 MR. HEINER: Objection. Asked and
17 answered twice.
18 MR. BOIES: I think he said he didn't
19 remember using those words. What I now want to try
20 to find out is whether he used those words or
21 conveyed that substance.
22 MR. HEINER: And he doesn't remember
23 using those words.
24 MR. BOIES: And I'm asking him whether
25 he conveyed that in words or in substance.

1 MR. HEINER: He testified as to
2 substance.
3 MR. BOIES: I don't believe he did.
4 But I'm in any event putting the question to the
5 witness.
6 THE WITNESS: I don't remember anything
7 about "control" as a word or in substance. But there
8 was an issue about the popularity of our runtime APIs
9 versus Sun's runtime APIs.
10 Q BY MR. BOIES: I take it you know
11 Mr. Slivka?
12 A Uh-huh.
13 Q You've got to answer "yes" or "no"
14 audibly so the reporter can take it down.
15 A Yes.
16 Q And you believe him to be a person of
17 competence and integrity?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Do you have any reason to believe that
20 he would have misstated what you told him when you
21 met with him last before April 14, 1997?
22 MR. HEINER: Objection.
23 THE WITNESS: In no way does this
24 purport to be a restatement of things I said to Ben
25 Slivka.

1 Q BY MR. BOIES: Well, Mr. Gates, what
2 this memorandum says is, quote,
3 "When I met with you last,
4 you had a lot of pretty pointed
5 questions about Java, so I want to
6 make sure I understand your issues
7 and concerns."
8 "Here's a start, can you
9 please add any that I'm missing?"
10 And then he lists six, the second of
11 which is, "How do we wrest control of Java away from
12 Sun?"

13 You see that in the exhibit, do you
14 not, sir?
15 A Uh-huh, yes.
16 Q Let me ask you to look at a document
17 that has been previously marked as Government Exhibit
18 373. It's a one-page exhibit and the second item on
19 the page is a message from you to Paul Maritz dated
20 June 16, 1997, on the subject of, quote, "Java
21 schism
," close quote.
22 (The document referred to was marked as
23 Government Exhibit 373 for identification and is
24 attached hereto.)
25 Q BY MR. BOIES: Did you send this

1 message, Mr. Gates?
2 A I don't remember it. But I don't have
3 any reason to doubt that I did.
4 Q What did you mean by, quote, "Java
5 schism
," close quote?
6 A I think the e-mail speaks for itself.
7 Q The e-mail may very well speak for
8 itself. But what I want to know is --
9 A I could have written a mail that says,
10 "A point that is important
11 to me is to have PURE JAVA
12 applications that do a lot HAVE to
13 ship a full runtime instead of being
14 able to count on the runtime being
15 shipped with the operating system,"
16 and so on.
17 Q Maybe my question wasn't clear. What
18 I'm trying to get you to do is to tell me what you
19 meant by the term "Java schism."
20 A It's a heading for this piece of
21 e-mail. The e-mail is the communication, not the
22 heading.
23 Q I understand that, sir. But what I'm
24 asking is: You chose the heading, did you not, sir?
25 A It appears I typed that.

1 Q Right. And why did you choose this
2 heading for this memo? What were you meaning to
3 convey by the term "Java schism"?
4 A Exactly what I put into the message.
5 Q Well, sir, what did you mean by
6 "schism"?
7 A It explains that in the message.
8 Q I'm asking you to explain it in your
9 words what you mean by the word "schism."
10 A I'm drawing a distinction between pure
11 Java apps and where they get their runtime bits.
12 Q And is that the schism that you're
13 referring to?
14 A That's what this e-mail is about, and
15 that's -- and I titled it "Java schism" when I wrote
16 that e-mail. And the question is: "How do pure Java
17 applications get their runtime bits?"
18 Q Could you read that answer back,
19 please?
20 (Answer read.)
21 Q BY MR. BOIES: What is on the two sides
22 of the schism, Mr. --
23 A The bits you get from the browser, the
24 bits you get elsewhere. And the mail couldn't be
25 clearer. It's asking about two sources of the bits.

1 You can get bits from the browser, you can get bits
2 somewhere else.
3 Q Okay.
4 Now, where else can you get the bits?
5 A They can ship with the application.
6 Q And why was it important to you to have
7 pure Java applications that have the characteristics
8 that you described in here?
9 A I didn't want to have to have the
10 browser get so large that it would have all the
11 runtime bits for all the applications.
12 Q And so where would the bits be?
13 A With the application.
14 Q And what you're saying is that it's
15 important to you that Microsoft develop pure Java
16 applications that have a lot of bits in them so that
17 those bits don't have to be in the browser. Is that
18 the case?
19 A No. It doesn't say anything about
20 Microsoft developing pure Java applications.
21 Q You're right, it doesn't.
22 A And it's clearly not about that.
23 Q What is it about then, sir?
24 A It's about pure Java applications in
25 general.

1 Q Did you believe that it was desirable
2 to have as many pure Java applications as possible?
3 A It has nothing to do with this e-mail.
4 The answer is no. But if you think it has something
5 to do with this e-mail, you're -- that's incorrect.
6 Q Okay. I think that it may or may not
7 be productive for you to speculate as to what I
8 think. What I am trying to do is I'm trying to get
9 your testimony about this e-mail and about your views
10 of Java more generally.
11 A I thought so.
12 Q And first let me ask a general
13 question, and that is: Did you believe that from
14 Microsoft's standpoint it was desirable to have as
15 many pure Java applications as possible?
16 A We weren't focused on that as a goal,
17 no.
18 Q In fact, is it fair to say that you
19 preferred fewer pure Java applications to more pure
20 Java applications?
21 A We preferred more applications that
22 took advantage of our APIs, and so we worked with
23 ISVs to maximize the number that took advantage of
24 our APIs.
25 Q And your APIs were not pure Java APIs;

1 correct?
2 A No. Some were, and some weren't.
3 Q Yes, sir, some were, and some weren't.
4 But the APIs that you wanted people to
5 use were APIs that were not pure Java APIs; correct,
6 sir?
7 A No. We were glad to have people use
8 both.
9 Q Were you indifferent as to whether they
10 used your pure Java APIs or your proprietary APIs?
11 MR. HEINER: Objection.
12 THE WITNESS: You've introduced the
13 word proprietary, and that completely changes the
14 question. So help me out, what do you want to know?
15 Q BY MR. BOIES: Is the term "proprietary
16 API"
a term that you're familiar with, sir?
17 A I don't know what you mean by it.
18 Q Is it a term you're familiar with in
19 your business?
20 A I really don't know what you mean. You
21 mean an API that you have a patent on?
22 Q Mr. Gates, is the term "proprietary
23 API"
a term that is commonly used in your business?
24 A Let me give you --
25 Q All I'm trying to do --

1 A -- the common meanings that those words
2 could have. And then you can pick one of them, and
3 ask me a question about it.
4 Q No. All I need --
5 A Just -- you want me to define
6 "proprietary API" or not?
7 Q No, I don't want you to define
8 "proprietary API." I didn't ask you to define
9 proprietary API. I asked you a simple question
10 whether the term "proprietary API" was commonly used
11 in your business.
12 Now, I'm prepared to sit here as long
13 as you want to to answer questions that I haven't
14 asked. But I have a certain number of questions that
15 I'm going to ask at the end of these other answers.
16 Now, this is a simple question. You can say "yes,"
17 "no," or "It is used in lots of different ways." But
18 then I can choose what to follow up on. Or you can
19 simply make whatever statements you want, and I'll go
20 back to my question afterwards.
21 MR. HEINER: The witness is simply
22 trying to help you through a difficult subject
23 matter. That's all that's happening. It's not
24 offensive.
25 MR. BOIES: It is not offensive. But

1 all I am saying is with due respect, this witness's
2 efforts do not help me clarify difficult subjects.
3 MR. HEINER: They could help. But go
4 ahead and read the question one more time, or state
5 it again and he can answer it.
6 MR. BOIES: Okay.
7 Q Is the term "proprietary API" a term
8 that is commonly used in your business?
9 A I don't know how common it is. It has
10 many different meanings.
11 Q Is it a term that you have used in your
12 business?
13 A Sometimes.
14 Q Okay. Now, is it fair to say that when
15 you use the term "proprietary APIs" sometimes you
16 mean one thing and sometimes you mean something else?
17 A That's right.
18 Q Would you give me the different
19 meanings that you sometimes ascribe to the term
20 "proprietary APIs" when you use that term?
21 A It can mean an API that only happens to
22 be available from one company. It can mean an API
23 that for some reason related to intellectual property
24 can only be available from one company, and, of
25 course, that's never a black and white thing. It can

1 mean an API that somebody's chosen not to take to a
2 standards body. Those are three different things you
3 might mean by it.
4 Q I just want to be sure that the answer
5 is clear.
6 I'm not asking what I might mean by it
7 or what a person might mean by it. What I'm trying
8 to do is get you to tell me meanings that you ascribe
9 to that term when you use it.
10 A I've used all three of those.
11 Q Okay.
12 Are there other meanings that you have
13 ascribed to the term "proprietary API" in your use of
14 that term?
15 A Not that I can think of right now.
16 Q Okay.
17 Now, with respect to the API in
18 Windows, there are both Java APIs and non-Java APIs;
19 is that fair?
20 A I hate to tell you this, but what you
21 mean by "Java" there is subject to massive ambiguity.
22 Q Let me try to put the question this
23 way: In Windows there are pure Java APIs, there are
24 impure Java APIs, and there are APIs that have
25 nothing to do with Java; is that fair?

1 MR. HEINER: Objection. I guess at
2 this point I'll have to say that if we're going to
3 talk about pure Java APIs, you'll have to take the
4 time to go down that path as well, which I know
5 you're happy to do of defining what that term means.
6 MR. BOIES: I mean what the witness
7 meant when he wrote this e-mail on June 16, 1997.
8 MR. HEINER: Fine.
9 THE WITNESS: I don't see anything
10 about APIs.
11 Q BY MR. BOIES: Do you see "PURE
12 JAVA" --
13 A Yeah. But I don't see APIs.
14 Q -- in capital letters?
15 And I can spend as much time as we have
16 to on this. I think it shouldn't be necessary, but
17 if we have to, we will.
18 MR. HEINER: Mr. Boies, the difficulty
19 is -- I don't mean to be at all rude, but it's
20 partly -- you know, it's partly the complexity of the
21 subject matter and the difficulty you're having in
22 posing these questions. Java is a complex subject.
23 MR. BOIES: Java is a complex subject.
24 But when somebody talks about pure Java APIs, I don't
25 think that that is something that the witness can't

1 answer.
2 THE WITNESS: But you said that the
3 e-mail talks about pure Java API. And it doesn't.
4 MR. BOIES: No. I said pure Java.
5 THE WITNESS: No. You said APIs.
6 Q BY MR. BOIES: Mr. Gates, let me ask a
7 question. If you can't answer the question, you
8 can't answer the question.
9 Does Windows include pure Java APIs?
10 A There's a -- in some versions of
11 Windows there are some Java runtime APIs which at one
12 time Sun labeled as pure Java APIs.
13 Subsequently they changed in a way that
14 was not upwards compatible, so it's actually kind of
15 confusing.
16 Q Does Windows have any APIs that you
17 would consider to be pure Java APIs?
18 A Today?
19 Q Yes.
20 A Yeah. I guess the AWT 1.1 stuff you
21 might think of that way.
22 Q Anything else?
23 A I don't know what you mean "anything
24 else." Are we enumerating?
25 Q Any other API in Windows that you would

1 consider to be pure Java APIs, Mr. Gates?
2 A I know there's more. I don't know the
3 technical names for them.
4 Q And does Microsoft have a version of
5 Java that is not what you refer to in your memo as
6 pure Java?
7 A I have no idea what you mean by that
8 question.
9 Q Okay.
10 Does Windows include APIs that are
11 written in what is described as a form or version of
12 Java but not pure Java?
13 A Are you talking about the language?
14 Q If you don't understand the question,
15 Mr. Gates, you can simply say you don't understand
16 the question.
17 A Okay. I'm sorry. I don't understand
18 the question.
19 Q Good. Okay. That's what I'm trying to
20 do. What I'm trying to do is get on the record what
21 you say you understand and what you say you don't
22 understand.
23 MR. HEINER: Any time that the witness
24 clearly indicates he doesn't understand the question
25 but doesn't preface it with the words "I don't

1 understand the question." If you want that
2 convention --
3 MR. BOIES: I do, because I don't want
4 speeches as to what the witness does think if he
5 simply doesn't understand the question.
6 THE WITNESS: No. But I was pointing
7 out to you the part of the question that I didn't
8 understand because it was ambiguous.
9 MR. BOIES: Would you read the answer
10 back, please, or the statement.
11 (The following answer was read:
12 "A Are you talking about the language?")
13 MR. BOIES: No. I'm not talking about
14 the language if by "the language," you mean all the
15 things that you said about the Java language when we
16 were talking about Java yesterday. Now, let me go
17 back to me asking the questions, if I can.
18 Q As part of an effort to take control of
19 Java away from Sun in the terms used by Mr. Slivka in
20 his memo with Mr. Gates -- to you dated April 14,
21 1997, did Microsoft make an effort to get people to
22 use a version of Java APIs that was not pure Java
23 APIs?
24 MR. HEINER: Objection.
25 THE WITNESS: That's a very compound --

1 I don't understand the question.
2 Q BY MR. BOIES: Okay.
3 In an attempt to, in Mr. Slivka's
4 words, wrest control of Java away from Sun, did
5 Microsoft make an effort to get programmers to write
6 to APIs that could be used to run applications on
7 Windows but not on all other operating systems to
8 which a pure Java written program could be run?
9 A I wouldn't say that was part of
10 anything to do with controlling Java. But we do
11 promote the use of the unique Windows APIs.
12 Q And with respect to the unique Windows
13 APIs, are some of those APIs APIs that Microsoft
14 describes as Java APIs or has in the past?
15 A All of our APIs can be called from
16 Java. So now I don't know what you mean by a Java
17 API. Usually somebody would mean something that you
18 can only call from Java or something you can call
19 from Java whether you can call it from other
20 languages or not.
21 Our APIs we make available to a broad
22 set of languages including Java but others as well.
23 Q Mr. Gates, you've been sued by Sun
24 Microsystems over Java, have you not?
25 A There's a lawsuit with Sun.

1 Q Well, there's a lawsuit with Sun, and
2 it's a lawsuit with Sun relating to the use of Java;
3 right?
4 A It relates to a very specific contract
5 that we have with Sun.
6 Q And does that very specific contract
7 with Sun relate to Java?
8 A It's a license to various Sun
9 technologies related to Java.
10 Q Now, you're familiar with that lawsuit,
11 are you not, sir?
12 A Not very.
13 Q Not very?
14 Do you know what the contentions in
15 that lawsuit are?
16 A No.
17 Q Never tried to find out? Is that your
18 testimony?
19 A I haven't read the complaint, if that's
20 your question.
21 Q That's not my question.
22 My question is whether you've ever
23 tried to find out the substance of the allegations
24 about Java that Sun is making in its lawsuit against
25 Microsoft.

1 A My understanding of their allegations
2 is very limited.
3 Q What is your understanding of their
4 allegations?
5 A I haven't read the contract between
6 Microsoft and Sun.
7 Q I'm asking you about the allegations in
8 the complaint, not whether you've read the contract.
9 I'm asking you for your understanding, which I know
10 you've already said is very limited. But I'm asking
11 for your understanding of what allegations Sun makes
12 in its claim against Microsoft.
13 A I think there's some dispute about they
14 were supposed to make the test cases public and
15 upwards compatible, and they didn't make them public,
16 and they weren't upwards compatible. And that
17 relates to the contract that I haven't read.
18 Q And that's what you think they allege
19 in the complaint?
20 A Well, that -- those are certain things
21 that they were required to do, I believe.
22 Q My question is not about what you
23 believe they were required to do, Mr. Gates. My
24 question is: What is your understanding about the
25 complaint that they make about what you did, about

1 what Microsoft did?
2 Do you understand the question?
3 A You're asking me to summarize their
4 lawsuit?
5 Q I'm asking you to tell me what you know
6 about the claims they make in that lawsuit. You said
7 you know something about it, but it's very limited.
8 All I'm trying to do is get you to tell me what it is
9 you know about the claims they make in their lawsuit.
10 A I think they want us to ship JNI.
11 Q Is that all you know about their
12 claims?
13 A I think there was something about a
14 trademark.
15 Q What about the trademark?
16 A Whether we could use the trademark.
17 I'm not sure.
18 Q Don't you know, Mr. Gates, one of the
19 allegations that they make is that you're taking
20 their trademark and applying it to things that it
21 shouldn't be applied to?
22 A Yeah. I think there's a trademark
23 issue. I'm not sure what they're saying about the
24 trademark.
25 Q Do you know anything that they're

1 saying about the trademark according to your present
2 testimony?
3 A I know there's a dispute about the
4 trademark.
5 Q Well, don't you know that one of the
6 things they're alleging is that Microsoft is taking
7 their trademark and applying it to things that
8 shouldn't be applied to according to them?
9 A I'm not sure that's right.
10 Q You're not sure?
11 A Because I don't think we used their
12 trademark, I'm not sure. I'm kind of confused about
13 that. I've never seen us using their trademark, so
14 I'm a little confused about how that relates to any
15 dispute with Sun.
16 Q Did you ever try to find that out?
17 A What?
18 Q What the claims were more than your
19 present knowledge.
20 A I read something that was on our web
21 site about four days ago.
22 Q About the Sun lawsuit?
23 A Yeah. Bob Muglia had some statements.
24 Q Other than that, did you ever try to
25 find out what Microsoft is being charged with, what

1 they're alleged to have done wrong?
2 A I've had discussions with Maritz
3 saying: Do I need to learn about this lawsuit? Do I
4 need to spend a lot of time on it?
5 Q What did he say?
6 A He said, no, he's focused on that and I
7 can focus on other things.
8 Q Is one of the things that you're
9 focused on trying, in Mr. Slivka's words, to wrest
10 control or get control, if wrest is a word that you
11 don't like, of Java away from Sun?

12 A No.
13 Q How did you think Microsoft could get
14 control of Java away from Sun?
15 MR. HEINER: Objection.
16 THE WITNESS: I honestly don't know
17 what you mean by "control of Java." I know those
18 words are in that e-mail from Mr. Slivka. But when
19 you're asking me the question, I don't know what you
20 mean "control of Java."
21 Q BY MR. BOIES: Is it your testimony,
22 Mr. Gates, that as you sit here today under oath you
23 have no idea what Mr. Slivka meant when he said that
24 one of the pointed questions that you had raised with
25 him was how to get control of Java away from Sun?

1 A I told you, I think it related to our
2 attempt to make our runtime APIs the most popular
3 runtime APIs.
4 Q And not the Java APIs from Sun; is that
5 what you're saying?
6 A Well, let's not label the APIs, not the
7 unique ones that Sun was promoting.
8 Q When you say the unique ones that Sun
9 was promoting, what were the unique ones that Sun was
10 promoting called?
11 A I'm not sure what they're called. I
12 think AWT 1.2 maybe or JDK 1.2.
13 Q And is it your best testimony that
14 that's what you think this would have meant back in
15 April of 1997, sir?
16 A That what meant?
17 Q Getting control of Java away from Sun.
18 The thing we've been talking about here.
19 A Is that the same as "wrest control"?
20 You keep reading me these words from the e-mail.
21 Q Well, I'm trying to get away from the
22 word "rest" because you say you don't remember that
23 exact word. So I'm trying to use a word that's more
24 neutral like get or obtain control.
25 A And I've told you, I can't understand

1 what's meant by "control" there. I know that we're
2 trying to make our APIs popular with developers.
3 Q How does making your APIs popular with
4 developers relate to obtaining control of Java, if at
5 all?
6 A I don't know what it means to control
7 Java. How can somebody control Java? What does that
8 mean?
9 Q Is it your testimony that you have no
10 idea what that means?
11 A To control Java? I don't think anyone
12 can control Java. It's like saying controlling Basic
13 or COBOL.
14 Q Do you really mean that, sir?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And I'm going to press this just
17 another 30 seconds and then I will stop. But I
18 really do want to be sure that I have given you a
19 full and fair opportunity.
20 Is it your testimony that as you sit
21 here today under oath that you have no idea what is
22 meant by control of Java as used in this e-mail to
23 you by Mr. Slivka?
24 A I've said several times I think he must
25 be referring to our effort to make our APIs the most

1 popular APIs. But that wouldn't give us control of
2 Java. So I'm having a hard time relating it to these
3 specific words.
4 Q Well, without relating it to the
5 specific words, how would getting people to use your
6 APIs get control of Java? Why do you relate those
7 two in your mind?
8 A Because he probably means the Java
9 runtime, not Java.
10 Q Let's say he means the Java runtime.
11 A Then he's talking about the competition
12 of APIs.
13 Q Is it fair to say, Mr. Gates, that you
14 interpret this as how does Microsoft get, obtain,
15 control of Java runtime? Is that what you're saying?
16 A I think that's the most likely
17 explanation of what he meant. I still don't
18 understand the word "control" there because it's not
19 the word I'd use.
20 Q Well, according to Mr. Slivka it is the
21 word you used, is it not, sir?
22 MR. HEINER: Objection.
23 THE WITNESS: We've already been
24 through that.
25 Q BY MR. BOIES: But looking at this

1 doesn't refresh your recollection about having used
2 that word?
3 A It does not.
4 Q Have you ever said in words or in
5 substance to anyone that you wanted to obtain control
6 over Java or under -- over Java runtimes?
7 A I don't remember using those words.
8 Q Do you remember conveying that concept
9 or conveying that substance?
10 A If by "that concept" you mean conveying
11 the idea that we wanted our runtime APIs to be the
12 most popular, then the answer is yes.
13 Q Why did you want your runtime APIs to
14 be the most popular?
15 A By having our runtime APIs be the most
16 popular it means that people are more likely to
17 license Windows because there's applications that
18 take advantage of the unique innovations that are in
19 the Windows product.
20 Q Why does the fact that their
21 applications that take advantage of the unique APIs
22 that are in the Windows product make people more
23 likely to license Windows?
24 A Because it shows off the unique
25 innovations of Windows.

1 Q How does it show off the unique
2 innovations of Windows?
3 A Well, let's say, for example, they call
4 our tasking APIs, then it shows off the unique way
5 that we've done tasking. Let's say they call our
6 clipboard APIs, then it shows off the advances we've
7 made in data exchange which are very advanced.
8 Q Is it your testimony that trying to get
9 applications writers to write to Windows' own APIs
10 was something that you were trying to do only for the
11 reason that you've identified?
12 MR. HEINER: May I have that read back,
13 please?
14 (Question read.)
15 THE WITNESS: I think there's
16 additional reasons as well.
17 Q BY MR. BOIES: Isn't it a fact,
18 Mr. Gates, that one of the reasons that you were
19 trying -- that Microsoft was trying to get control
20 over the Java runtimes or Java, as it's described in
21 Mr. Slivka's memorandum, was to prevent Java or Java
22 runtimes from supporting competition with Windows?
23 MR. HEINER: Objection.
24 THE WITNESS: I don't know what you
25 mean by "control." That means I don't understand the

1 question.
2 Q BY MR. BOIES: Okay.
3 Did you ever participate in any
4 discussions within Microsoft as to the extent of
5 which Java or Java runtimes posed a threat to
6 Microsoft's position with respect to the Windows
7 platform?
8 A Yeah. I've already told you that there
9 came a point where we viewed Sun's unique Java
10 runtime APIs as a -- as a part of the competitive
11 environment, a competitor.
12 Q Okay.
13 Now, why were the Java APIs from Sun a
14 competitor?
15 A Well, if people just used the least
16 common denominator APIs, then they don't show off the
17 innovations that we're doing in Windows, and it makes
18 it less attractive to people to license Windows or
19 update Windows.
20 Q Now, what I'm trying to do -- and you
21 may think you've answered this question, but I don't
22 think the record makes it clear in any event.
23 What I'm trying to do is distinguish
24 between that reason which you've given me a couple
25 times and any other reason that may exist.

1 Do you understand what I'm asking?
2 A No.
3 Q Okay. Let me try it again.
4 Isn't it true, Mr. Gates, that in
5 addition to whatever desire you may have had to show
6 off your Windows capabilities that you say you had,
7 that one of the things that was going on here was
8 your trying, Microsoft's trying, to prevent Java from
9 getting wide enough distribution so that it could
10 support applications programming for platforms other
11 than Windows?
12 A No.
13 Q Not at all, sir?
14 A There's no limitation of distribution.
15 Q Didn't ask whether there was any
16 limitation of distribution. I asked you whether in
17 any way the desire to prevent Java from developing
18 applications that could be used on platforms other
19 than Windows motivated what Microsoft was doing in
20 connection with Java.
21 MR. HEINER: Objection. That's a
22 distinctly different question.
23 THE WITNESS: What does it mean Java
24 developing applications?
25 Q BY MR. BOIES: I actually didn't recall

1 that I used that phrase.
2 THE WITNESS: Can you read me the
3 question?
4 (The following question was read:
5 "Q I asked you whether in
6 any way the desire to prevent Java
7 from developing applications that
8 could be used on platforms other than
9 Windows motivated what Microsoft was
10 doing in connection with Java.")
11 MR. BOIES: Can you answer that
12 question, Mr. Gates. If you can't, I'll rephrase it.
13 But if you can answer, I'd like an answer.
14 THE WITNESS: I don't know what you
15 mean "Java developing applications."
16 Q BY MR. BOIES: Isn't it a fact,
17 Mr. Gates, that in addition to whatever other reasons
18 you say you had for what you did with Java and
19 Windows APIs, part of what you were trying to do was
20 to prevent Java from having a wide enough
21 distribution so that it could support programs that
22 could be used on platforms other than Windows?
23 A We had no way of preventing Java from
24 being used on other platforms. It is used on other
25 platforms.

1 Q That wasn't my question, sir. My
2 question is whether or not part of what you and
3 Microsoft was trying to do was to limit the
4 distribution of Java sufficiently so that you could
5 thereby limit or reduce the extent to which
6 applications were written that could be used on
7 platforms other than Windows.
8 A No. In fact, we sell the most popular
9 Java tools in the market.
10 Q It is your testimony, then, sitting
11 here, that Microsoft was not at all motivated by a
12 desire to limit the extent to which Java could be
13 used to develop applications programming that could
14 be used on platforms other than Microsoft's Windows?
15 Is that your testimony?
16 A Yes.
17 Q All right, sir.
18 Was your concern over Netscape's
19 browser at all related to the fact that Netscape's
20 browser was viewed within Microsoft as a method of
21 distributing Java?
22 MR. HEINER: Objection. At the risk of
23 belaboring the record.
24 Would you care to state the question
25 more precisely and perhaps develop a better record?

1 Or do you want to stick with the question you have?
2 MR. BOIES: If the witness tells me he
3 can't understand that question, that's an answer. If
4 he can understand the question, I'd like to have an
5 answer.
6 MR. HEINER: In addition to that
7 there's an objection based on that, so that's a
8 second consideration.
9 THE WITNESS: Well, you have to read
10 the question again. Sorry.
11 (The following question was read:
12 "Q Was your concern over
13 Netscape's browser at all related to
14 the fact that Netscape's browser was
15 viewed within Microsoft as a method
16 of distributing Java?")
17 MR. HEINER: Another objection.
18 Foundation.
19 MR. BOIES: Okay. I think the
20 foundation objection may be well-taken. Let me ask
21 the foundation question.
22 Q Did Microsoft believe that Netscape's
23 browser was a means of distributing Java APIs?
24 A Well, Netscape had some APIs in its
25 browser. I'm not sure if you would refer to them as

1 Java APIs or not.
2 Q It's not a question whether I would
3 refer to them that way or not, Mr. Gates. What I'm
4 asking you is what you and Microsoft believe.
5 And my question is: Did you and others
6 at Microsoft believe that Netscape's browser was a
7 method for distributing Java APIs?
8 A There were APIs in the Netscape
9 browser. I don't think they were strictly Java APIs
10 or even in a direct sense specifically.
11 Q Have you completed your answer, sir?
12 A Uh-huh.
13 MR. BOIES: Can I have the question
14 read back again?
15 (The following question was read:
16 "Q It's not a question
17 whether I would refer to them that
18 way or not, Mr. Gates. What I'm
19 asking you is what you and Microsoft
20 believe.
21 "And my question is: Did
22 you and others at Microsoft believe
23 that Netscape's browser was a method
24 for distributing Java APIs?")
25 Q BY MR. BOIES: Can you tell me that,

1 sir?
2 A There were APIs in Netscape browser
3 some of which under some definition of Java APIs
4 you'd call Java APIs.
5 Q And was there concern within Microsoft
6 that the distribution of these things that you say
7 could be called Java APIs would adversely affect
8 Microsoft?
9 A Our concern is always to get people to
10 develop Windows applications. And to the degree that
11 there's other APIs people to develop to, there's some
12 competition for the attention of developers and
13 focusing on those APIs. But that doesn't relate to
14 distribution.
15 MR. BOIES: Can I have my question read
16 back again, please?
17 (The following question was read:
18 "Q And was there concern
19 within Microsoft that the
20 distribution of these things that you
21 say could be called Java APIs would
22 adversely affect Microsoft?")
23 Q BY MR. BOIES: Could I have an answer
24 to that question, please, sir?
25 A No, not the distribution.

1 Q Let me ask you to look at a document
2 that has been previously marked as Government Exhibit
3 349. The first message in this exhibit is an e-mail
4 from Paul Maritz to you and a number of other people
5 dated July 14, 1997; correct, sir?
6 A That's what it appears to be, yes.
7 Q Did you receive this e-mail, sir?
8 A I don't remember it. But I don't have
9 any reason to doubt that I did.
10 Q Mr. Maritz writes to you in the third
11 sentence, quote,
12 "If we look further at
13 Java/JFC being our major threat, then
14 Netscape is the major distribution
15 vehicle."
16 Do you see that, sir?
17 A Uh-huh.
18 Q Do you recall Mr. Maritz telling you in
19 words or in substance that Netscape was the major
20 distribution vehicle for the Java/JFC threat to
21 Microsoft?
22 A No.
23 Q Did you believe in July of 1997 that
24 Java/JFC was a major threat to Microsoft as
25 Mr. Maritz writes here?

1 A It was a significant issue for his
2 group in terms of how ISVs would choose to focus
3 their development in the future.
4 Q Did you believe in July of 1997 that
5 Java/JFC was a major threat to Microsoft?
6 A In the form that it existed as of that
7 day, maybe not. But if we looked at how it might be
8 evolved in the future, we did think of it as
9 something that competed with us for the attention of
10 ISVs in terms of whether or not they would take
11 advantage of the advanced features of Windows.
12 Q Do you have any understanding as to
13 what Mr. Maritz meant when he wrote to you about
14 Java/JFC being a major threat to Microsoft?
15 A Yeah. I just answered that.
16 Q What did you understand Mr. Maritz to
17 mean when he says Java/JFC was Microsoft's major
18 threat?
19 A I just answered that.
20 Q You'll have to give me an answer,
21 Mr. Gates, because if you did answer it, it's not an
22 answer that I can understand how it applies to the
23 particular question I'm asking.
24 A I said we looked at how the various
25 runtime APIs which was always confusing, you know,

1 where they were going or what they were doing. And
2 "JFC" is just a term for some of those, how they
3 might evolve in a way that would take away the focus
4 of developers in terms of writing applications that
5 would take unique advantage of Windows features.
6 Q I understand that you say that that was
7 an issue for you. Why was that a major threat to
8 Microsoft, if you have any understanding?
9 A Well, if people stopped writing
10 applications that took advantage of Windows runtime
11 APIs, that would mean that users wouldn't have access
12 to the innovative features that we were putting into
13 Windows.
14 Q Why was that a major threat to
15 Microsoft?
16 A If ISVs weren't writing applications to
17 take unique advantage of Windows, then it wouldn't
18 show off the Windows innovation and so users wouldn't
19 have much reason to update Windows or to license any
20 new versions of Windows.
21 Q You referred to JFC in a couple answers
22 ago and, of course, that's here in the memo. What
23 does "JFC" stand for as you understand it?
24 A I was always a little confused about
25 that, and it changed over time. It stands for Java

1 Foundation Classes.
2 Q Mr. Maritz writes here that Netscape is
3 the major distribution vehicle for Java and Java
4 Foundation Classes.
5 Do you see that?
6 A That's at the end of that sentence?
7 Q Yes.
8 A Uh-huh.
9 Q Do you see that?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Now, in a prior answer you said you
12 didn't understand how the browser was a distribution
13 vehicle. Does this refresh your recollection that at
14 least within Microsoft in July of 1997 Netscape was
15 viewed as the major distribution vehicle for Java?
16 A Not for Java. And in my view, the
17 browser wasn't a key distribution channel. Maritz
18 may or may not have agreed with that. But you can
19 always ship the runtime with the applications.
20 Q Mr. Maritz here says, "Netscape is the
21 major distribution vehicle."
22 Now, it's clear to you, is it not, sir,
23 that he means the major distribution vehicle for Java
24 and Java Foundation Classes?
25 A He doesn't mean for Java.

1 Q Well, sir, he says --
2 A I told you many times about the use of
3 the word "Java." And I'm not sure you heard me.
4 When people use the word "Java," they don't mean just
5 Java.
6 Q So when Mr. Maritz here used the word
7 "Java," in this e-mail that you say you don't recall
8 receiving, you're telling me that he meant something
9 other than just Java?
10 A He -- I bet he meant some runtime APIs,
11 not Java.
12 Q Okay.
13 Let's assume that you're right, let's
14 assume that when he talks about Java he means Java
15 runtime APIs. Would you then agree that what he is
16 saying here is that Netscape is the major
17 distribution vehicle for Java runtime APIs and Java
18 Foundation Classes?
19 A That appears to be what he's saying in
20 this e-mail.
21 Q And what was Mr. Maritz's position in
22 July of 1997?
23 MR. HEINER: Asked and answered too
24 many times.
25 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I've answered this

1 three times.
2 MR. BOIES: I'm not sure you did as to
3 this particular point in time. And one of the things
4 that you have told me is that the titles changed.
5 And so one of the things I want to be sure the record
6 is clear on is what Mr. Maritz's position was as of
7 the time of this key document.
8 MR. HEINER: You can cut and paste the
9 transcript any way you want in your briefs and in
10 your opening and closing argument. The witness has
11 testified as to his title many times.
12 Q BY MR. BOIES: Mr. Gates, what was
13 Mr. Maritz's title on July 14, 1997?
14 A I think group vice president.
15 Q What was he group vice president of?
16 A I don't know what the title would have
17 said after that. But he managed the group that
18 contained all of our Windows activities.
19 Q Was he group vice president for
20 Platforms?
21 A I'm not sure. I'm sure if it contained
22 the word "Platforms," it didn't just say Platforms,
23 because he's got Office and some other things also.
24 Q But within his responsibilities would
25 have been Windows?

1 A That's right.
2 Q Let me ask you to look at a document
3 that has been marked as Government Exhibit 374. This
4 is an e-mail to you from Tod Nielsen dated August 25,
5 1997, with copies to Brad Chase.
6 (The document referred to was marked as
7 Government Exhibit 374 for identification and is
8 attached hereto.)
9 Q BY MR. BOIES: Did you receive this
10 e-mail, sir?
11 A I don't remember receiving it. But I
12 don't have any reason to doubt that I did.
13 Q Let me ask you to look at the seventh
14 paragraph down. That's the third paragraph from the
15 bottom, the last sentence. That says, quote,
16 "So, we are just proactively
17 trying to put obstacles in Sun's path
18 and get anyone that wants to write in
19 Java to use J/Direct and target
20 Windows directly," close quote.
21 Do you see that, sir?
22 A Uh-huh.
23 Q Do you recall being told in or about
24 August of 1997 that Microsoft was trying to put
25 obstacles in Sun's path and get anyone that wants to

1 write in Java to use J/Direct and target Windows
2 directly?
3 A No.
4 Q Do you know why Microsoft was trying to
5 put, quote, "obstacles in Sun's path," close quote?
6 A I don't know what that means.
7 Q Do you know why Microsoft was trying to
8 get anyone that wants to write in Java to use
9 J/Direct?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Why was that?
12 A Because J/Direct allows you to make
13 calls that show off unique innovations in Windows and
14 make -- therefore, make Windows more attractive.
15 Q Was there any reason other than that
16 that Microsoft wanted to get anyone that wants to
17 write in Java to use J/Direct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q What?
20 A Well, there's a benefit to us if people
21 are showing off Windows, and it increases Windows
22 popularity. That helps us with the other
23 applications we write for Windows as well including
24 Microsoft Office.
25 Q How is that so?

1 A Because Microsoft Office is targeted to
2 Windows, we get a benefit that goes even beyond
3 increased sales of Windows if we manage to popularize
4 Windows.
5 Q Why is that?
6 A Because they can buy Office.
7 Q They can buy Office and use it on the
8 Mac, too, can't they, since you didn't cancel Mac
9 Office?
10 A We have a much wider set of
11 applications available for the Windows platform than
12 any other platform. And we have more frequent
13 updates of products like Office on the Windows
14 platform. It's a more powerful version, the Windows
15 version, and it -- therefore, our revenue per unit is
16 somewhat higher.
17 Q You mean the version of Office for
18 Windows is more powerful than the version of Office
19 for Mac? Is that what you're saying?
20 A Yes. We have Office Pro.
21 Q What is J/Direct?
22 A J/Direct is a way of allowing Java
23 language code to call native OS functionality. It's
24 a fairly clever thing that we have done. And others
25 now use that term to refer to it when they let their

1 OS functionality show through as well.
2 Q You have referred to Java runtimes.
3 Are there J/Direct runtimes?
4 A There's a thunk, but it's -- I don't
5 know if you would call it a runtime or not. It's a
6 thunk.
7 Q Would you define for me what the
8 difference is, in your mind, between a thunk and a
9 runtime?
10 A A thunk is a small piece of runtime
11 that remaps parameters and calling conventions in
12 such a way to be able to pass along an API call to
13 another piece of runtime.
14 Q Does -- or I should say, when was
15 J/Direct developed by Microsoft?
16 A I'm not sure.
17 Q Approximately?
18 A I don't -- I don't know. I mean --
19 Q Why was J/Direct developed by
20 Microsoft?
21 A To make is easy for people who choose
22 the Java language to call the unique runtime features
23 in various operating systems including Windows.
24 Q Why do you want people to write in
25 J/Direct as opposed to Java?

1 A They are writing in Java. You only use
2 J/Direct if you write in Java.
3 Q Well, what Mr. Nielsen says is that
4 Microsoft is trying to get anyone that wants to write
5 in Java to use J/Direct.
6 Do you see that?
7 A That's right. And that means writing
8 in Java.
9 Q And why do you want to get anyone who
10 wants to write in Java to use J/Direct?
11 A Because that gives them a way of
12 calling unique Windows APIs that allow us to show off
13 the innovative features in Windows.
14 Q Couldn't you do that by having them
15 simply write in Java and you providing the thunk
16 separately?
17 A The name of the thunk is J/Direct. I
18 guess we could have another thunk and call it
19 something other than J/Direct, and that would be
20 another way that they could do it. But we didn't
21 choose to do it twice.
22 Q No, you didn't choose to do it twice.
23 That's not my question, Mr. Gates.
24 My question is why you were trying to
25 get program developers, independent programming

1 people, to use J/Direct. Why were you trying to get
2 them to do that?
3 MR. HEINER: Certainly asked and
4 answered.
5 THE WITNESS: Because it allows them to
6 get at the unique API functionality that's in the
7 Windows product and show off the innovations that we
8 do there.
9 Q BY MR. BOIES: But you didn't have to?
10 A Tell me some other way.
11 Q Well, I'm asking you. If you tell me
12 that that's what you say is the only way that you
13 could think of for them to do it, that's your
14 testimony. I don't get to testify here. If I did,
15 there would have been a lot of things I would have
16 said along the way. But since I don't get to
17 testify, all I get to do is ask you questions.
18 And my question to you is whether there
19 was a way, that you were aware of at the time, to let
20 people see all of what you refer to as the
21 functionality of Windows without getting people to
22 write to what you refer to here to use J/Direct if
23 they wanted to write in Java.
24 A J/Direct is exactly the work we did to
25 make it possible and reasonable for people writing in

1 Java to call the unique Windows APIs.
2 Q Have you finished your answer?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Okay.
5 Now, were you aware of other ways of
6 accomplishing the same result that you considered and
7 rejected at the time?
8 A What time is that?
9 Q The time that you developed J/Direct.
10 A We don't know what that time is.
11 Q Well, you may not know the exact year.
12 But do you know that when -- were you aware when
13 J/Direct was being developed within Microsoft? Were
14 you aware of it at the time?
15 A I'm not sure.
16 Q Did you know it was being developed?
17 A I'm not sure.
18 Q Did you have any discussions about the
19 development of J/Direct?
20 A I was not involved in the design of
21 J/Direct.
22 Q I'm not asking you whether you were
23 involved in the design of J/Direct. I'm asking you
24 whether you were aware at the time that J/Direct was
25 being developed that it was being developed?

1 A I'm not sure.
2 Q Did you ever have any discussions with
3 anyone about the development of J/Direct at or about
4 the time it was being developed?
5 A I don't think so.
6 Q At the time that J/Direct was being
7 developed, did you know that people were trying to
8 develop J/Direct?
9 A It's just a thunk.
10 Q My question is: Did you know that they
11 were trying to develop this thunk?
12 A I doubt it.
13 Q Did you participate at all in any
14 discussions as to what alternatives there were to the
15 development of J/Direct?
16 A Before it was developed?
17 Q Let's start with before it was
18 developed.
19 A No, I don't think so.
20 Q What about during the time it was being
21 developed?
22 A I don't think so.
23 Q How about after it was developed?
24 A I don't think so.
25 MR. HEINER: We should take a break

1 soon.
2 MR. BOIES: Okay.
3 MR. HEINER: Okay.
5 2:02 P.M. We're going off the record. This is the
6 end of Tape 3 of the videotaped deposition of Bill
7 Gates.
8 (Recess.)
9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:16.
10 We're going back on the record. This is Tape 4 of
11 the videotaped deposition of Bill Gates on August 28.
12 Q BY MR. BOIES: Let me show you a
13 document that has been previously marked as
14 Government Exhibit 378.
15 (The document referred to was marked as
16 Government Exhibit 378 for identification and is
17 attached hereto.)
18 Q BY MR. BOIES: In the middle of the
19 first page there is a message dated May 14, 1997,
20 from Ben Slivka to you and others.
21 Did you receive this e-mail on or about
22 May 14, 1997?
23 A I'm not sure. But I have no reason to
24 doubt that I did.
25 Q When Mr. Slivka writes as he does in

1 the second paragraph, "This summer we're going to
2 totally divorce Sun," do you know what he's referring
3 to?
4 A I'm not sure.
5 Q Did you ever ask him what he was
6 referring to?
7 A No.
8 Q In the next to last -- or in the last
9 sentence, actually, in the last sentence of the
10 second paragraph, Mr. Slivka writes that "JDK 1.2 has
11 JFC." And is the JFC there the Java Foundation
12 Classes that you referred to earlier?
13 A It's one of the many JFCs.
14 Q What is one of the many JFCs?
15 A The one in JDK 1.2.
16 Q Is the JFC in JDK 1.2 part of what was
17 described as a major threat to Microsoft?
18 A I have no idea which JFC that sentence
19 written by somebody other than me referred to.
20 Q Well, the sentence written by somebody
21 other than you was written to you; right, sir?
22 A It was sent to me.
23 Q Yes. And it was sent to you by one of
24 your chief -- one of your top executives; correct,
25 sir?

1 A In an e-mail.
2 Q Yes.
3 And that's a frequent way that your top
4 executives communicate with you; correct, sir?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Now, Mr. Slivka here says that
7 Microsoft is going to be saying uncomplimentary
8 things about JDK 1.2 at every opportunity.
9 Do you see that?
10 A Where's that?
11 Q That is, "JDK 1.2 has JFC, which we're
12 going to be pissing on at every opportunity."
13 A I don't know if he's referring to
14 pissing on JFC or pissing on JDK 1.2 nor do I know
15 what he specifically means by "pissing on."
16 Q Well, do you know that generally he
17 means by pissing on he's going to be saying and
18 Microsoft is going to be saying uncomplimentary
19 things.
20 A He might mean that we're going to be
21 clear that we're not involved with it, that we think
22 there's a better approach.
23 Q Well, as you understand it, when
24 Mr. Slivka says he's going to be pissing on JDK 1.2,
25 as you seem to interpret it, at every opportunity, do

1 you interpret that as meaning that Microsoft is going
2 to be saying uncomplimentary things about JDK 1.2?
3 A I told you I don't know whether pissing
4 applies to JFC or JDK.
5 Q Well, he's going to be pissing on or
6 Microsoft is going to be pissing on either JDK 1.2 or
7 JFC or both according to Mr. Slivka.
8 Is that at least fair?
9 A That's appears to be what the sentence
10 says.
11 Q Yeah. And as the chief executive
12 officer of Microsoft, when you get these kind of
13 e-mails, would it be fair for me to assume that
14 "pissing on" is not some code word that means saying
15 nice things about you, that has the usual meaning
16 that it would in the vernacular?
17 A I don't know what you mean in this kind
18 of e-mail.
19 Q The kind of e-mail that is sent to you
20 by executives in the course of your business,
21 Mr. Gates.
22 A So all e-mails I get? Ben Slivka's not
23 an executive.
24 Q All the e-mails you get from people
25 telling you that they're going to piss on competitive

1 products, that's what I'm talking about.
2 A I don't remember mail like that. It
3 looks like I got one. But believe me, it's not a
4 term that's commonly used.
5 Q But you have no reason to think that he
6 means it in any way other than the normal meaning of
7 that term, do you, sir?
8 A I think it's a term of multiple
9 meanings. In this case I think it means what you've
10 suggested it means.
11 Q I thought it did too, and I hope to
12 avoid asking you going through the actual language.
13 And, Mr. Gates, let me show you a
14 document that has been previously marked as
15 Government Exhibit 377.
16 The second e-mail here refers to what
17 is attached as a final copy of the memo that was sent
18 to you for Think Week in November 1995.
19 (The document referred to was marked as
20 Government Exhibit 377 for identification and is
21 attached hereto.)
22 Q BY MR. BOIES: Do you recall receiving
23 this document, sir?
24 A No. What I recall about this document
25 is that it's already been marked as an exhibit and

1 that I spoke with Mr. Houck about it yesterday.
2 Q That may be so. My question to you is:
3 Do you recall receiving this -- let me make it
4 simple.
5 Did you receive this memo in or about
6 November of 1995?
7 A As I said before, for my Think Weeks I
8 get about three cardboard boxes of materials that
9 people put together for me. And in looking at this
10 memo, it's not a memo that I had seen before
11 Mr. Houck's deposition questions put to me yesterday.
12 Q So it's your testimony the first time
13 you saw this document was when Mr. Houck showed it to
14 you yesterday?
15 A That's right. It had a different
16 exhibit number then.
17 Q Let me ask you to go to page 5 of the
18 document which bears in the bottom right-hand corner
19 the Microsoft document production number ending 4683.
20 A Okay.
21 Q Do you see the heading "Shell
22 Integration"?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Do you see the second sentence where it
25 says, "We will bind the shell to the Internet

1 Explorer, so that running any other browser is a
2 jolting experience"?
3 A I see that.
4 Q Do you have any understanding as to
5 what was meant by that?
6 A I can guess.
7 Q Well, first, this is in a memo that is
8 entitled "How to Get 30 percent share in 12 Months";
9 correct?
10 A Let's take a look. Yeah, that's on the
11 first page.
12 Q And is it clear to you that that is
13 referring to getting a 30 percent share of the
14 browser market?
15 A I haven't read the document, but it
16 seems likely that's what it is.
17 Q Okay.
18 Now, do you have an understanding --
19 I'm not asking you to guess. But do you have an
20 understanding as to what is meant by the statement,
21 "We will bind the shell to the Internet Explorer, so
22 that running any other browser is a jolting
23 experience"?
24 A I don't know what he meant by it, but I
25 can tell you what it likely means.

1 Q Okay. I take it this is really how you
2 would have interpreted this when you received it; is
3 that fair?
4 A I didn't read it, so --
5 Q I said if you had received it, this is
6 how you would interpret it?
7 A I said I didn't read it. I actually --
8 I would have read the whole memo if I had received
9 it. I wouldn't have turned to that one page and just
10 looked at that one sentence. I would have read the
11 memo from the beginning page by page, and then I
12 probably would have understood it better than I do at
13 this moment.
14 Q If you do not have an understanding of
15 what is meant by it, you can tell me. If you do have
16 an understanding of what is meant by it, I would like
17 to have it.
18 A I don't know what he meant by it, but
19 I'd be glad to guess as to what it might mean.
20 Q I don't want you to guess. But if you
21 as the chief executive officer of Microsoft can tell
22 me how you would, in the ordinary course of your
23 business, interpret this statement, I would like to
24 have you do so.
25 MR. HEINER: Mr. Gates was prepared to

1 do that quite a while ago. That was an unnecessary
2 exchange.
3 Go ahead. You may answer.
4 THE WITNESS: He may be referring to
5 the fact that when you get a separate frame coming up
6 on the win -- on the screen, it's different than
7 having something take place in frame. And part of
8 our shell integration strategy going back all the way
9 to 1990 included the idea that as you navigated or
10 browsed through different media types, you didn't
11 have to have another frame come up because that --
12 that's sort of an artifact of having to think about
13 applications instead of objects.
14 And so as he looked at integrating the
15 browser and the shell together, we were going to
16 create a form of navigation optionally but as the
17 default where you don't switch frames as you navigate
18 the links from the shell to what's out on the
19 Internet back to what's in the local store.
20 Q BY MR. BOIES: Did anyone ever tell you
21 independent of this document in words or in substance
22 that Microsoft intended to bind the shell to the
23 Internet Explorer so that running any other browser
24 is a jolting experience?
25 A Well, certainly the idea of integrating

1 in a way that made a better browsing experience was
2 something we were talking about quite a bit. Those
3 words, no, I never heard anything along the lines of
4 those words.
5 Q The words that are in this document; is
6 what you're saying?
7 A That's right.
8 Q Okay.
9 Did Microsoft make any effort to
10 discourage Apple from writing in a JDK 1.2?
11 A That never would have come up. Apple
12 is not an application developer.
13 Q Let me -- let me back up.
14 Did Microsoft ever make an effort to
15 get Apple to discourage applications writers for
16 Apple's machines from writing in what you have
17 referred to as Sun's Java or using the Sun Java
18 runtimes?
19 A I'm sure there was discussion with
20 Apple about the fact that their unique operating
21 system capabilities wouldn't show through with the
22 least common denominator pure approach. Whether that
23 related specifically to JDK 1.2 or not, I can't say.
24 Q When you say you're sure there were
25 discussions, are you talking about discussions

1 between Microsoft representatives and Apple
2 representatives?
3 A Yes.
4 Q What was Microsoft's interest in having
5 Apple discourage applications writers for Apple's
6 operating system from using Java runtimes or JDK 1.2?

Here’s more:

17			Q	Let me ask you to look at the last
18 paragraph under the heading "Sun byte codes are bad
19 for them." And you say, quote,
20 "I want them to understand
21 that helping NCs and JAVA will push
22 us to do Windows and other software
23 in SUN byte codes even if we don't
24 rewrite them in JAVA," close quote.
25 Do you see that?

1 A Uh-huh.
2 Q When you say "I want them to
3 understand," are you referring to Intel?
4 A I think so.
5 Q Did Microsoft make any effort to
6 convince Intel not to help Sun and Java?
7 A Not that I know of.
8 Q Did you or anyone at Microsoft attempt
9 to convince Intel not to engage in any software
10 activity?
11 MR. HEINER: Objection.

Then again with Java:

	5			Q	And if they did, I take it it's your
6 testimony no one ever told you about it?
7 A That's right.
8 Q Did you or, to your knowledge, anyone
9 at Microsoft express concern to Intel about the
10 success of Java or what you have referred to in this
11 deposition as Java runtimes?
12 A From time to time we'd have general
13 discussions with Intel about things going on in the
14 industry. And I'm sure our views of the Java runtime
15 competition may have come up in some of those
16 discussions.
17 MR. BOIES: Could I have the question
18 and answer read back please?
19 (The following record was read:
20 "Q Did you or, to your
21 knowledge, anyone at Microsoft
22 express concern to Intel about the
23 success of Java or what you have
24 referred to in this deposition as
25 Java runtimes?

1 "A From time to time we'd
2 have general discussions with Intel
3 about things going on in the
4 industry. And I'm sure our views of
5 the Java runtime competition may have
6 come up in some of those
7 discussions.")
8 Q BY MR. BOIES: In those discussions,
9 did you or others from Microsoft express concern
10 about Java and Java runtime's popularity to Intel
11 representatives?
12 A I think it's likely in those general
13 discussions. We talked about some of the
14 opportunities and competitive things going on
15 including our view of what was going on in Java
16 runtime.
17 Q Did you tell representatives of Intel
18 or, to your knowledge, anyone from Microsoft tell
19 representatives of Intel that in Microsoft's opinion
20 the wide distribution of Java and Java runtimes were
21 incompatible with interests of both Intel and
22 Microsoft?
23 A Actually, there -- there's one aspect
24 of Java that could have an effect on Intel and would
25 have no effect on Microsoft. So it's completely

1 orthogonal. And I pointed out to them what that was.
2 And so I did think there was one thing they ought to
3 think about in terms of where the world of software
4 development was going. But it wasn't an issue that
5 related to Microsoft.
6 Q Irrespective of what you said about
7 that particular issue, did you or others from
8 Microsoft tell Intel in words or in substance that is
9 as a general matter, a general conclusion, the
10 popularity of Java and Java runtimes was not in your
11 joint interest? And joint interest, I mean Microsoft
12 and Intel.
13 A No. There was nothing about it that
14 related to any joint interest. There was one thing
15 about it that related to some of Intel's interests
16 and there were other things about it that related to
17 some of Microsoft's interests. But there's no
18 overlap between those two.
19 Q Let me put the question this way: Did
20 you or, to your knowledge, others from Microsoft tell
21 Intel that for whatever reasons you believed that the
22 widespread distribution of Java and Java runtimes was
23 inconsistent with both interests of Intel and
24 interests of Microsoft?
25 A Well, it's like you're trying to

1 rephrase what I said in a more inaccurate way. I
2 told you there's an aspect of it that I thought they
3 should think about that related to them only, that's
4 the byte code piece. And then there's an aspect of
5 it that relates to us only. So there's no end there,
6 there's just a piece that might have been of interest
7 to them that I articulated, and then there's the part
8 that relates strictly to us.
9 Q Let me take it in two pieces. Did you
10 tell Intel representatives that you believed that
11 there were reasons why the widespread distribution of
12 Java and Java runtimes were not in Intel's interests?
13 A Not in that general sense. I pointed
14 out the very specific aspect of it, the byte code
15 aspect, that I thought they ought to think about that
16 had no effect on us.
17 Q Did you tell Intel representatives that
18 there were things about the wide distribution of Java
19 and Java runtimes that Microsoft believed was not in
20 Microsoft's interest?
21 A It's likely that in the general
22 discussion the notion of some of the new competitive
23 activities including the Java runtime issues would
24 have come up in some discussions with Intel but
25 not -- not related to anything they were doing.

Right now, in 2020, Microsoft is trying to “wrest control” of Linux and “proprietary APIs” (or file systems, formats etc.) help this agenda.

“This anti-trust thing will blow over. We haven’t changed our business practices at all.”

Bill Gates

Bill Gates Refers to His Business as “Jihad” and Accuses Java of Being a “Religion” With “Rabid” Supporters

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, IBM, Java, Microsoft, Oracle, SUN at 3:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Gates, a hypocritical businessman and college dropout (he wasn’t a particularly good college student), has turned computing into religious wars (or cults) rather than a technical (scientific) endeavour

Dahlia and rosesSummary: Peace disallowed by Bill Gates, as usual; to him, this is all just a religious war that strives to cull out and eliminate or convert the ‘infidels’ (those who reject his religion); the Bill Gates deposition tapes show his deep concerns and fear of Java APIs

THE Bill Gates deposition has material relevant to the Java API case that’s going to SCOTUS and is already being discussed.

“Microsoft still treats GNU/Linux users in this way, equating geeks with fanatics.”Transcripts are included, but we’ve cut aside the relevant bits, which exposed a deep attitudinal problem. The word “Jihad” was used a lot [1, 2, 3, 4]; if Bill Gates views his business as a “Jihad”, then why not resort to insulting projections, insinuating that people who like Java are “rabid” (his word) religious fanatics. Microsoft still treats GNU/Linux users in this way, equating geeks with fanatics.

The text below refers to Sun‘s NetPC (NC). For those who don’t know what it’s all about, check our wiki pages. Here we go: (“A” is Bill Gates, where “Q” is the interrogator, asking Questions)

24		A.	I don't remember seeing it.
25 Q. The subject of this e-mail is "Overview

1 slides for Billg/NC & Java session with 14+'s on
2 Monday." Do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And I think you identified the 14+'s
5 as the -- some group of executives; is that correct?
6 A. No.
7 Q. What is the 14+'s?
8 A. It's people above a certain level,
9 primarily engineers. Also executives, but mostly
10 engineers.
11 Q. It's all the people in the company
12 above a certain level, the 14 level?
13 A. Which are mostly engineers and not
14 executives.
15 Q. How many people are there in the 14+'s
16 group?
17 A. It's a good question. I think around
18 200 to 300.
19 Q. And these would be the people in the
20 200 or 300 top rated jobs in the company; is that
21 correct?
22 A. If top means the best compensation,
23 yes.
24 Q. Now, do you recall the slides that are
25 attached to this e-mail?

1 A. I remember when I testified earlier
2 seeing these and saying that I was pretty sure that I
3 never presented these slides.
4 Q. Do you recall whether someone else
5 presented these slides in January of 1997?
6 A. I'm not sure. I remember looking at
7 the slides and thinking probably not.
8 Q. Let me ask you to look at the third
9 page of the exhibit, which is headed "Key Platform
10 Challenge." It is page 2 of the charts and page 3 of
11 Exhibit 383, in which it says "NC & Java are platform
12 challenges." Do you see that?
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. Did you believe in January of 1997 that
15 Java was a platform challenge?
16 A. Not Java the language, but some of the
17 Java runtime APIs that were being promoted to ISPs in
18 the way that Sun and others were talking about
19 enhancing them were platform challenges.
20 Q. When reference is made here to Java, do
21 you understand that to refer to what you refer to as
22 Java runtime APIs?
23 A. I'm not sure.
24 Q. Are you aware of people asserting that
25 Java runtime APIs were a platform challenge in or

1 about January of 1997?
2 A. I just told you that we looked at what
3 was going on in terms of the plans of Sun and other
4 people with Java runtime APIs as being a platform
5 challenge.
6 Q. Are you aware of any other platform
7 challenge represented by Java other than Java runtime
8 APIs?
9 A. No.
10 Q. So would it be fair to say that you
11 believe that when reference is made here to Java, the
12 reference means Java runtime APIs since it asserts
13 here that Java is a platform challenge?
14 A. It's the best way to make sense of a
15 document that I haven't seen until my deposition, as
16 far as I know.

A little further down:

15		Q.	And did Mr. Stimac tell you that he was
16 thinking about taking a job with IBM?
17 A. I think he did.
18 Q. And did he tell you that one of his
19 concerns was whether IBM's relationship with
20 Microsoft would be a problem?
21 A. I see that in the e-mail. I don't
22 remember it specifically.
23 Q. Do you remember people at IBM being
24 concerned about IBM's relationship with Microsoft
25 being a problem?

1 A. No.
2 Q. Do you remember Mr. Stimac telling you
3 that he was concerned about whether IBM's
4 relationship with Microsoft would be a problem either
5 here or -- or at any other time?
6 A. No, I don't remember that.
7 Q. In response to that you say that you
8 told him that "The Java religion coming out of the
9 software group is a big problem." Do you see that?
10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. Did you tell Mr. Stimac that?
12 A. I don't remember telling him that.
13 Q. Now, when you talk about the Java
14 religion coming out of the software group, you're
15 talking about IBM's software group; correct, sir?
16 A. I'm not sure.
17 Q. Well, this sentence immediately follows
18 Mr. Stimac purporting to be concerned about whether
19 IBM's relationship with Microsoft would be a problem
20 and immediately precedes a sentence in which you say
21 you told him that IBM refused to big anything related
22 to Backoffice.

And separately (much later)

11			The next paragraph you say, "Overall we
12 will never have the same relationship with IBM that
13 we have with Compaq, Dell and even HP because of
14 their software ambitions. I could deal with this
15 just fine if they weren't such rabid Java backers."
16 Now, when you refer in that sentence to
17 "they" as in "I could deal with this just fine if
18 they weren't such rabid Java backers," you're again
19 talking about IBM; correct?
20 A. Parts of IBM. It's important to
21 distinguish different groups in IBM.
22 Q. And the different groups in IBM would
23 include perhaps, among others, the software group as
24 one and the PC group as another; correct?
25 A. That's right.

1 Q. At the end of that you say that you are
2 willing to take some risk in improving the
3 relationship and you think that steps ought to be
4 taken to approach them, and you end by saying "We
5 should position it as let's do some things that are
6 good for both of us but which require some of the
7 rhetoric to be lowered on both sides. On their side
8 I mean Java and NC."
9 And "their side" you're talking about
10 IBM's side?
11 A. I think so.
12 Q. And what you're saying is that you want
13 a message conveyed to IBM that in order to improve
14 the relationship, you want some of their rhetoric
15 lowered on Java and NC?
16 A. No.
17 Q. No? Did you want IBM to lower their
18 rhetoric on Java?
19 A. I actually explain in this message that
20 I thought the rhetoric was actually hurting IBM
21 itself, independent of Microsoft.
22 Q. Did you think it was hurting Microsoft?
23 A. I wasn't sure. In terms of specifics,
24 I wasn't sure.
25 Q. When you say that you could deal with

1 IBM's relationship just fine if IBM wasn't such rabid
2 Java backers, weren't you saying that you thought
3 that IBM's rabid backing of Java was bad for
4 Microsoft?
5 A. I know at this time we thought some of
6 the claims around Java were just plain false and
7 weren't doing customers any favors by leading them
8 down a belief that certain things were solved that
9 were not solved.
10 Q. My question, Mr. Gates, is in October
11 of 1997, did you believe that what you refer to here
12 as IBM's rabid backing of Java was something that was
13 hurting Microsoft?
14 A. I can't point to any particular hurting
15 that it was doing. We didn't think it was accurate
16 in terms of what technically could be achieved with
17 Java.
18 Q. Let me put the question this way. In
19 or about October of 1997, did you want to stop IBM
20 from being what you refer to here as a rabid Java
21 backer?
22 A. We thought some of the rabidness was
23 hurting IBM as well as the industry as a whole.
24 Q. Did you believe it was hurting
25 Microsoft, or were you just doing this as sort of a

1 public spirited company to try to help IBM from
2 hurting itself?
3 A. I can't point to any particular damage,
4 but we certainly would have preferred if the more
5 extreme statements we didn't think were true, if they
6 weren't pushing those forward.
7 Q. Mr. Gates, let me put it this way. In
8 October of 1997, were you trying to get IBM to reduce
9 its public support for Java?
10 A. I say in here that under some
11 circumstance the rhetoric should be lowered on both
12 sides and that I think that's -- you know, that makes
13 sense in certain circumstances.
14 Q. I don't think you actually say in
15 certain circumstances, do you, sir? You may have
16 meant that, I'm not saying you didn't mean it, I'm
17 just saying those words don't appear here, do they?
18 A. No. It's all about "I am willing to
19 take some risk in improving the relationship and
20 think you should approach them on steps for
21 improvement." It's in that vein that I talk about
22 rhetoric being lowered on both sides.
23 Q. And then you go on to say that you mean
24 on IBM's side they lower the rhetoric on Java and NC;
25 correct?

1 A. The rhetoric.
2 Q. And by rhetoric, you were talking about
3 public rhetoric?
4 A. Definitely public rhetoric.
5 Q. And is it fair to say in October of
6 1997 you were trying to get IBM to reduce its public
7 rhetoric in support of Java?
8 A. I don't know what you mean "trying." I
9 talk about a circumstance in which both sides would
10 lower their rhetoric.
11 Q. You were offering to lower your
12 rhetoric if they would lower their rhetoric; is that
13 fair? Isn't that what you say right here?
14 A. In the context -- this is about
15 improving the overall relationship, which is not
16 focused on the rhetoric. It says in the context of
17 that improved relationship, I think both of us should
18 lower our rhetoric.
19 Q. Indeed you say that the improved
20 relationship will "require some of the rhetoric to be
21 lowered on both sides."
22 A. That's a statement about human feelings
23 that if our rhetoric is so high, it will be hard for
24 them to do their side of improving the relationship
25 and vice-versa.

1 Q. You then go on to say on their side,
2 IBM's side, you mean Java and NC.
3 A. That's part of the rhetoric I'm
4 referring to.
5 Q. Part of their rhetoric?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. That you wanted them to lower; isn't
8 that true?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Okay. Let me ask you to look at
11 Exhibit 401. This is a message from you to
12 Mr. Ballmer and Mr. Chase with a copy to Mr. Maritz
13 and some other people also given copies dated
14 August 15, 1997 at 4:07 p.m. on the subject of IBM
15 and Netscape; correct?
16 A. Uh-huh

22 years have passed. Mr. Maritz took over a serial GPL violator at one stage, Java is still around, and Oracle goes hardball over Java APIs (after more than a decade of lawsuits it reaches the highest court). Microsoft is still fighting against Java, but it’s mostly a losing battle. Many developers abandoned the Microsoft ‘religion’, so Microsoft bought GitHub with malicious intent.


Librethreat Database Updated

Posted in Free/Libre Software, Java, Microsoft at 3:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Lion's statue

Summary: Database which keeps track of variants of attack vectors on Free/libre software now includes two more forms of threat

HOURS ago we updated Librethreat Database, which had been described at the end of June. “Apathy” has been added. “I’d refer to what is labeled “Apathy” there in the Librethreat Database as the Microsoft Effect,” one reader suggested. “It is where a defeatist attitude is cultivated among end users such that “all” computers are perceived as difficult, expensive, and unreliable and thus there is no point in even investigating, and so the status quo is opted for again. I’d expect it’s some sort of cognitive dissonance, like the one illustrated by Aesop in the story about the fox and the grapes.

“However, what you describe under the title “Apathy” would be more accurately described as false help. It is so pervasive a problem that it probably even has a name.”

It’s important to understand how Free software is being attacked — so urgent a matter in fact that we nowadays cover less politics or general news in our daily links (to make time for more articles about the threats).

Moments ago we published an article about Fig, which is connected to Python (OOP like Java). Techrights “mentioned Java recently,” the reader said about this article which followed one about Netscape. “Included in the “proprietary” category below are some old links, but they could just as well be filed under “Standards”. Basically it looked like Microsoft was succeeding at two things by selling something that it called Java but wasn’t: first, it was carrying out its Embrace, Extend, Extinguish attack by including Windows-only extensions. Second, it was giving Java a worse reputation by distribution something that was significantly broken and underperforming. Sun won a Pyrrhic victory and was paid off in chump change. Microsoft succeeded in defending its Windows monopoly against Java with no real penalty for its methods.”

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. [Old] Sun, Microsoft settle Java lawsuit

    The dispute dates back to a Java licensing agreement that Microsoft signed in 1996. In November the following year, Sun filed suit against Microsoft for breach of contract, accusing the company of distributing a version of Java that was not compatible with Sun’s. Sun amended its complaint in May 1998 to include charges of unfair competition and copyright infringement.

  2. [Old] What does Sun’s lawsuit against Microsoft mean for Java developers?

    Sun has responded to Microsoft’s release of Internet Explorer (IE) 4.0, and its 2.0 release of the SDK for Java (SDKJ) with a lawsuit in U.S. District Court. According to Sun’s press release, “the complaint charges Microsoft with trademark infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, unfair competition, interference with prospective economic advantage, and inducing breach of contract.” Specifically, Microsoft made the choice last week to ship products it claims are fully Java 1.1 compliant, but which failed to pass the Java 1.1 compatibility tests the company received from Sun in February. “Microsoft embarked on a deliberate course of conduct to fragment Java,” said Alan Baratz, president of JavaSoft, during a Sun teleconference today at 10:30 a.m. PST.


    The sticking point is that Microsoft decided the Core Java class libraries were insufficient for its needs. Now there’s nothing wrong with extending things by subclassing and placing the new objects in a package outside of the java.* class hierarchy. But deciding to add about 50 methods and 50 fields into the classes within the java.awt, java.lang, and java.io packages, as Microsoft did, is extremely problematic. “Microsoft deceptively altered key classes and inserted them into their SDK,” said Baratz, which results in developers thinking they are writing Java, when actually they are writing something that runs only on Internet Explorer.

  3. [Old] Microsoft to Pay $20 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over Java

    In its lawsuit, filed in 1997, Sun accused Microsoft of violating the agreement by shipping a version of Java that could be made to run exclusively on Windows. Sun said the version ”polluted” Java, which is designed to run on all systems, and it asserted more generally that Microsoft was seeking to co-opt a technology that threatened the dominance of its Windows platform.

  4. [Old] Sun Microsystems v. Microsoft (Java Licensing Suit)

    Sun Microsystems makes network computing systems which use a Unix operating system. Sun also is the developer and licensor of Java Technology, a standardized application programming environment that is designed to allow software developers to create programming code that can run across different platforms. One set of uses is for applets that improve the appearance and interactive quality of web pages. On March 11, 1996, Sun and Microsoft entered into a licensing agreement which allows Microsoft to use, modify and adapt Java Technology. Microsoft proceeded to use Java Technology in developing MS Internet Explorer 4.0, and other software products. Sun alleges that Microsoft has refused to adhere to Sun’s most recent set of Java specifications and Java API, and that this constitutes an attempt to fragment the standardized application environment, and break with cross platform compatibility. Sun filed suit on October 8, 1997, seeking both injunction relief, and $35 million in monetary damages. Microsoft has counter-claimed against Sun.

  5. [Old] Sun, Microsoft settle Java suit

    Java emerged in the mid-1990s and was immediately hailed as a technology that could greatly affect Microsoft’s future, as it allowed developers to create desktop applications that could run on any operating system. As a result, developers ideally would not have to dedicate themselves to writing Windows programs to survive.

    Although hype outpaced actual Java implementation, the technology has steadily caught on.

    The germ of the suit began when Microsoft took out a Java license in 1996. Sun contended that Microsoft quickly began to run afoul of the licensing terms and filed the initial lawsuit in October 1997.


Microsoft’s WSL is Designed to Weaken GNU/Linux (on the Desktop/Laptop) and Strengthen Vista 10

Posted in GNU/Linux, IBM, Java, Microsoft, Red Hat at 12:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Don’t encourage new, cross-platform Java classes, especially don’t help get great Win 32 implementations written/deployed. [...] Do encourage fragmentation of the Java classlib space.”

Ben Slivka, Microsoft

Summary: What Microsoft does to GNU/Linux on the desktop (and/or laptop) bears much resemblance to what Microsoft did to Java a couple of decades ago

Windows Vista 10 is a terrible operating system, both technically and commercially. Its track record in the market has been appalling and not even sick deviants like Microsoft Peter could spin that (they tried a lot, every day/week). Microsoft, fearing a growing adoption of Chromebooks and various forms of more Freedom-respecting distros (than Chrome OS), is trying to chew the competition and hijack the brand, then distort it. It’s an old strategy, so many analogies exist.

“The person in charge of GitHub (Microsoft put him in charge!) has a history of attacks on Java.”Java is a powerful toolset and language (it became a lot more than just syntax). It’s still very widely used, though not everyone is a fan. “If Java had true garbage collection,” ‬Robert Sewell jokingly said,‭” ‬most programs would delete themselves upon execution.‭” Some would say similar things about Python and other high-level languages. Similarly, many people mock low-level languages because they involve more complicated things such as pointers and may be prone to buffer overflows, especially when used by inexperienced programmers with little or no testing. I haven’t touched Java in years, but many moons ago I used it for its cross-platform nature. That’s one of its major selling points; not many frameworks are as portable and cross-platform, so it’s hardly surprising Google adopted the APIs.

“With Java, Microsoft gave out a broken, non-standard, Windows-only variant in violation of their contract with Sun AND nonetheless persisted in trying to call it Java. I see that as what Microsoft is doing to GNU/Linux via WSL,” one reader told us this afternoon.

“They attempted, relentlessly, to infect GNU/Linux with this patent trap; thankfully they failed. People pushed back.”The person in charge of GitHub (Microsoft put him in charge!) has a history of attacks on Java [1, 2]. It’s hardly surprising that his Xamarin sidekick Miguel de Icaza has a history of FUD and bashing of Java, e.g. after the Oracle lawsuit against Google/Android. They have been pushing .NET for ages, in the form of Mono. They attempted, relentlessly, to infect GNU/Linux with this patent trap; thankfully they failed. People pushed back. We won one battle, but not yet the war. Microsoft keeps fighting Bill Gates' "Jihad".

Our reader believes that what Microsoft plans to do with WSL is somewhat similar to what it did to Java, not just to Netscape. “It is unlikely that Microsoft is in violation of the GPL in this specific case,” he added. “However, it is certain that what we see is a port to Windows and probably increasingly incompatible over time.”

“Our reader believes that what Microsoft plans to do with WSL is somewhat similar to what it did to Java, not just to Netscape.”They already did this numerous times before, e.g. with curl (there was a controversy a couple of years back). By deviating from known and accepted standards they can make stuff constructed or coded on Windows incapable of running in its original, native environment. “Some research again on Java can help come up with similarly alarming analogies,” I replied, knowing some of the things that Microsoft said internally while sabotaging Java. We have quite a repository of old articles on this topic, including antitrust material.

The fact that Linux Foundation staff keeps celebrating WSL and even the takeover of GitHub serves to show whose side the Foundation is on. Let that sink in for a while…

Christine Hall from the OSI’s Board told me a few days ago that “considering the name, the Linux Foundation is no friend to Linux or the spirit behind open source.”

“Many of us (GNU/Linux users) feel so technically-orphaned or homeless when it comes to representation of GNU/Linux, especially on the desktop.”“Jim Zemlin never met a dollar he didn’t like,” she told me separately (and publicly) about Jim Zemlin. “He has nothing but disdain for desktop Linux,” she continued. “He wishes we would just go away.”

Many of us (GNU/Linux users) feel so technically-orphaned or homeless when it comes to representation of GNU/Linux, especially on the desktop. We don’t suppose IBM will take leadership; earlier today Phoronix reported that platform support is being narrowed in Fedora (less than a week after the IBM deal was closed!). Fedora/Red Hat/IBM staff is meanwhile starting unnecessary disputes with Canonical/Ubuntu over Snaps in GNOME.


[ES] Microsoft ‘Asalto con Todo’ Contra Android, Java, y GNU/Linux, Usando la Clásica E.E.E. Táctica de Nuevo

Posted in Antitrust, Deception, GNU/Linux, Google, Java, Microsoft at 7:47 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz


Article as ODF

Publicado por Antitrust, Deception, GNU/Linux, Google, Java, Microsoft at 7:13 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Embrace and Extend
Credit: unknown (Twitter)

Summary: Otro recordatorio de la realidad que Microsoft está muy activo en el frente E.E.E., not no sólo contra GNU/Linux pero también Android y Java

NO es un secreto que Microsoft está tratándo de obstaculizar el desarrollo de Android o dominárlo completamente, no simplemente extorsiónandolo con patentes de software o ejerciéndo influencia/control usando patentes de software. Entonces también hay el aspecto antimonopolio; fue Microsoft y sus proxies/grupos frontales que impulsaron a los que impulsaron a los políticos Europeos a ir detrás de las aventuras Linux de Google (hemos cubierto estos hechos muchas veces por casi una década).

Entonces también hay el aspecto antimonopolio; fue Microsoft y sus proxies/grupos frontales que impulsaron a los que impulsaron a los políticos Europeos a ir detrás de las aventuras Linux de Google (hemos cubierto estos hechos muchas veces por casi una década).”

Ahora mismo encontramos a Jason Perlow [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] (un empleado de Microsoft que habitualmente ataca a los rivales de Microsoft) haciéndo el anti-Java y anti-Android berrinche en ZDNet, quién estupidamente emplea empleados de Microsoft como periodistas. La última de Jason Perlow tiene carnada en el títular, “La crisis existencial de Android: ¿El porqué Java necesita morir en devices móbiles?” (ataque contra ambos Android y Java; dos pajaros, una piedra).
Cuánt típico es todo esto. Agenda disfrazada de ‘noticias’. Ese es el modus operandi y el modelo de negocios de CBS, quien es dueño de ZDNet. Para entender mejor el porque de Perlow desearíá basurear/hablar mal de ambos Java y Android, consideren el caso de RoboVM, e cual Microsoft acaba de matar usando el clásico E.E.E método. El último nuevo artículo acerca del asesinato de RoboVM por parte de Microsoft de James Darvell (y por extensión dañar a Android y a Linux) va como sigue:

Microsoft recientemente hizo un gran ruido alrededor de su amor y apoyo de la comunidad Open Source (especialmente Linux), pero al mismo tiempo se trata de hacer medidas concretas para mejorar su apoyo a los proyectos de software libre, sus motivos no puede ser totalmente altruista. Microsoft sigue financiando ataques legales contra los proyectos de código abierto en varios frentes, y se ha aplastado proyectos de código abierto cuando conviene a la empresa.
Tal es el caso de RoboVM, un compilador de Java-a-móvil que apoya el desarrollo móvil de plataforma cruzada.
RoboVM fue originalmente un proyecto de código abierto, aunque eso cambió después de que la empresa matriz fue adquirida por Xamarin en octubre de 2015. Xamarin tenía varios productos similares que apoyan el desarrollo multiplataforma utilizando diferentes lenguajes de programación. Naturalmente, Xamarin vio RoboVM como una adición adecuada a su establo.
Poco después de la adquisición, se hizo un anuncio en el sentido de que el modelo de desarrollo de código abierto “no estaba funcionando” para el equipo RoboVM. El proyecto se cerró, y derechos de licencia se incrementaron para que coincida con las otras herramientas en la alineación de Xamarin.
A principios de este año, Microsoft adquirió Xamarin, y mientras se está promocionando con orgullo la mayoría de conjunto de herramientas de Xamarin, parece que no hay lugar para RoboVM en los planes de desarrollo multi-plataforma de Microsoft. La semana pasada, el equipo RoboVM anunció que el proyecto sería cerrada.

Actualmente, RoboVM no dijo esto después de su compra pero poco tiempo antes de ella, probablemente cuando negociaba la toma de control por parte de Microsoft todavía tuvo lugar [1, 2, 3]. Darvell del Linux Journal continua:

Sin embargo, hay algunos que dirán que Microsoft no le gusta Java. Microsoft consiguió sus dedos quemados en 1997, cuando Sun demandó a Microsoft por su intento de apropiación de Java. En aquel entonces, Java se convertirá en el “lenguaje de Internet”, y trayendo el apoyo applet de Java en Internet Explorer era un objetivo importante. Al estilo de Microsoft, Java VM de Windows admite sólo parcialmente los Java estándar lo que es más, añadido funciones publicados que no formaban parte de la norma oficial.
El objetivo era crear una situación en código que se ejecutaba en una máquina virtual de Microsoft no se presentaría en cualquier otra plataforma. Secuestrando el estándar de Java, Microsoft planea capturar base de usuarios de Sun y dictar el futuro de Java. Por supuesto, ese plan resultó en un desastre caro, lo que explica la actitud tibia de la compañía a Java desde entonces.

Nos preocupa que el próximo E.E.E. de Microsoft que haya pueda ser Canonical. Entonces allí esta la preocupación acerca de la Linux Foundation, la cual como Canonical al presente tiene dinero de Microsoft money en su mesa. Hablando de lo cual, la propaganda de Microsoft está siendo amplificada por la Linux Foundation incluso dos veces el mismo dia (ayer), levantando dudas como, ¿para quién están trabajando estos dias? Despues de permitir antiguo personal de Microsoft dentro de ellas, y haber estado recibiéndo dinero de Microsoft, el poder del dinero los amenaza también.

No sobrestime la malicia de Microsoft. Está todavía dirigida por la misma gente.”

Microsoft tiene una historia de usar la corruptible influencia del dinero para demoler a sus competidores, e.g. al contratar a sus empleados, pagar por cláusulas de no competición, hacerse cargo de ellas sólo para desmántelarlas. No sobrestime la malicia de Microsoft. Está todavía dirigida por la misma gente.

Infestaciónes de Linux están siéndo descubiertas en muchos de nuestros grandes cuentas como parte de los comprómisos de escalación.”

Microsoft Confidential


Microsoft’s ‘Full Assault’ on Android, Java, and GNU/Linux, Using Classic E.E.E. Tactics Again

Posted in Antitrust, Deception, GNU/Linux, Google, Java, Microsoft at 7:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Embrace and Extend
Credit: unknown (Twitter)

Summary: Another reminder of the fact that Microsoft is very active on the E.E.E. front, not just against GNU/Linux but also Android and Java

IT IS no secret that Microsoft is trying to derail Android development or take over it, not just tax it using software patents or exerting influence/control using software patents. Then there’s the antitrust aspect; it was Microsoft and its proxies/front groups that pushed European politicians to go after Google’s Linux endeavours (we have covered this in dozens of posts going half a decade back).

“Then there’s the antitrust aspect; it was Microsoft and its proxies/front groups that pushed European politicians to go after Google’s Linux endeavours (we have covered this in dozens of posts going half a decade back).”Right now we find Microsoft’s Jason Perlow [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] (a Microsoft employee who habitually attacks Microsoft’s rivals) doing the anti-Java and anti-Android spiel at ZDNet, which foolishly employs Microsoft staff as journalists. Perlow’s latest piece has a bait headline, “Android’s existential crisis: Why Java needs to die on mobile devices” (attack on both Android and Java; two birds, one stone).

All we can say is, how typical. Agenda as ‘news’. That’s the modus operandi and the business model of CBS, which owns ZDNet.

To better understand why Perlow would wish to trash-talk/badmouth both Java and Android, consider the case of RoboVM, which Microsoft has just killed using its classic E.E.E. method. James Darvell’s good new article about Microsoft’s assassination of RoboVM (and by extension harm to Android and to Linux) goes as follows:

Microsoft recently made a big noise about its love and support of the Open Source community (especially Linux), but while it’s making concrete steps toward improving its support for FOSS projects, its motives may not be entirely altruistic. Microsoft continues to fund legal attacks against open-source projects on multiple fronts, and it has crushed open-source projects when it suits the company.

Such is the case with RoboVM, a Java-to-mobile compiler that supported cross-platform mobile development.

RoboVM originally was an open-source project, although that changed after the parent company was acquired by Xamarin in October 2015. Xamarin had several similar products that support cross-platform development using different programming languages. Naturally, Xamarin saw RoboVM as a suitable addition to its stable.

Shortly after the acquisition, an announcement was made to the effect that the open-source development model “wasn’t working out” for the RoboVM team. The project was closed, and licensing fees were increased to match the other tools in Xamarin’s lineup.

Earlier this year, Microsoft acquired Xamarin, and while it’s proudly touting the majority of Xamarin’s suite of tools, it seems there’s no place for RoboVM in Microsoft’s cross-platform development plans. Last week, the RoboVM team announced that the project would be shut down.

Actually, RoboVM didn’t say this after the buyout but shortly before it, probably when negotiation with Microsoft’s outpost still took place [1, 2, 3]. Darvell of Linux Journal continues:

But, there are some who will say that Microsoft just doesn’t like Java. Microsoft did get its fingers burned back in 1997 when Sun sued Microsoft over its attempt to appropriate Java. Back then, Java was set to become the “language of the Internet”, and bringing Java applet support to Internet Explorer was an important goal. In true Microsoft fashion, the Windows Java VM only partially supported the published Java standard—what’s more, it added features that were not a part of the official standard.

The goal was to create a situation where code that ran on a Microsoft VM would not run on any other platform. By hijacking the Java standard, Microsoft planned to capture Sun’s user base and dictate the future of Java. Of course, that plan resulted in an expensive debacle, which explains the company’s lukewarm attitude to Java ever since.

We worry that next on Microsoft's E.E.E. queue there might be Canonical. Then there’s concern about the Linux Foundation, which just like Canonical currently has Microsoft money on its table. Speaking of which, Microsoft propaganda is being amplified by the Linux Foundation even twice in one day (yesterday), raising questions such as, who are they working for these days? After letting former Microsoft staff in, and having received money from Microsoft, the power of money threatens them too.

“Don’t underestimate Microsoft’s malice. It’s still run by virtually the same people.”Microsoft has a history of using the corrupting influence of money to demolish competitors, e.g. by poaching employees, paying for non-compete clauses, taking over only to dismantle and so on. Don’t underestimate Microsoft’s malice. It’s still run by virtually the same people.

“Linux infestations are being uncovered in many of our large accounts as part of the escalation engagements.”

Microsoft Confidential


Microsoft’s War on Java Shows That Microsoft’s E.E.E. (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) Tactics Are Alive and Well

Posted in Antitrust, GNU/Linux, Java, Microsoft, Mono at 3:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Microsoft a serial killer of FOSS

A serial killer

Summary: Microsoft has just killed yet another FOSS project (using money to shut down competitors) — one that was helping Android and Java

THE headline “Embrace, extend – and kill. Microsoft discontinues RoboVM” says it all really. Several people in our IRC channels noticed this original story (from the original statement) rather quickly and later on in the day some people told me about it privately, so it obviously wasn’t overlooked at all.

“Nice,” Lirodon wrote in the afternoon, “and now Microsoft has killed RoboVM dead. It was already dead when they became non-free.”

“Microsoft,” MinceR responded, “where projects go to die [...] just like they killed entire video game developer companies (Terminal Reality and Ensemble Studios)” (we covered this years ago).

Microsoft is just the same old evil company, there is no ‘ new’ Microsoft. Microsoft will try this against GNU/Linux if it can. It’s its classic modus operandi, but taking on a project as big as these (to “extinguish”) is a monumental task.

What Techrights wrote about RoboVM when it was first “embraced” [1, 2, 3] turns out to be true. We foresaw exactly what Microsoft would do about RoboVM once it’s payday (yet again!) for Miguel de Icaza.

Some people still wonder, what exactly happened to RoboVM? Here it is in their own words: “Over the past few weeks, we’ve been working with the teams at Xamarin and Microsoft to assess the technology and business conditions of RoboVM to determine the path forward for the products. After looking at the complete landscape for mobile development with Java, the decision has been made to wind down development of RoboVM.”

After they had made it proprietary (shortly before Xamarin stepped in formally), essentially stabbing the whole community in the back, the Microsoft people (all of them are Microsoft staff now) did this:

For any fools out there who still think Microsoft doesn’t do E.E.E. against FOSS, here we go again. What would it take to wake people up? How many more companies need to die? How could RoboVM not know that Xamarin was an evil proxy of Microsoft? It was common knowledge as it wasn’t hard to see where Xamarin’s money had come from (Microsoft veterans).

Microsoft is now essentially shutting down another pillar of Java, so this is classic E.E.E. via Xamarin. As one person put it to us, “and today Microsoft ordered RoboVM to wind down operation” (linking to the original announcement).

A lot of the utter rubbish about Microsoft “loving Linux” is a villainous lie. It’s the best lie money can buy as it’s clear that Microsoft is still very aggressive; it hates GNU/Linux, it hates Android, and it hates Java. Don’t let the Microsoft-funded media fool you (Microsoft Peter, for instance, moved from the UK to the US to write for Condé Nast, which is paid by Microsoft). Microsoft basically buys articles from various large media networks; it pays networks to tell us that Microsoft has changed, but nothing is changing, it’s only escalating.

The above, says Fernando Cassia, “reminds me of VirtualPC, which was a product of Innotek Gmbh and offerend Windows virtualization under OS/2 hosts….”

He then told me, “guess which product they dropped after being acquired by Microsoft? Yes, Virtual PC for IBM OS/2 :-/”

He further emphasised that “everything Microsoft does is about leveraging its cash cow to hurt competitors or whatever it sees as a menace” and “the war on Java started ten years ago… “Operation Sunblock” never really stopped” (here is the article about “Operation Sunblock”)

“20 years ago,” he added a few hours later, “boy how time flew [...] “+options available…including tools that will help you PORT TO XAMARIN” //Competitor eliminated.Mission accomplished”

When will be the next antitrust probe against Microsoft bribery, racketeering, blackmail, and extortion? Did it get enough lobbyists in all the right places in order to shift any such focus to Google? Remember that Microsoft is still run by the same thugs (only the CEO changed) and they want Android and Linux to be next in the E.E.E. pipeline. Microsoft loves nothing but itself and its own monopoly of lock-in and back doors. New charm offensives try to lull us into sleep and inaction (no defensive/reactionary statements from the community).

As one person told me yesterday: “Remember Microsoft’s charm offensive with Nokia? We all know very well how that ended and what happened to MeeGo & Meltemi.”

We wrote a lot about what Microsoft did to Nokia. How many more Linux and FOSS backers need to die (out of work) before the media acknowledges that Microsoft is a liar and an assassin?

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources




Samba logo

We support

End software patents


GNU project


EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com

Recent Posts