United States Of America. v. Microsoft Corporation Court Filing by Thomas Penfield Jackson, November 5, 1999 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 56 of 58. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here D. The Effect of Microsoft’s Efforts to Prevent Java from Diminishing the Applications Barrier to Entry Had Microsoft not been committed to protecting and enhancing the applications barrier to entry, it might still have developed a high-performance JVM and enabled Java developers to call upon Windows APIs. Absent this commitment, though, Microsoft would not have taken efforts to maximize the difficulty of porting Java applications written to its implementation and to drastically limit the ability of developers to write Java applications that would run in both Microsoft’s version of the Windows runtime environment and versions complying with Sun’s standards. Nor would Microsoft have endeavored to limit Navigator’s usage share, to induce ISVs to neither use nor distribute non-Microsoft Java technologies, and to impede the expansion of the Java class libraries, had it not been determined to discourage developers from writing applications that would be easy to port between Windows and other platforms. Microsoft’s dedication to the goal of protecting the applications barrier to entry is highlighted by the fact that its efforts to create incompatibility between its JVM and others resulted in fewer applications being able to run on Windows than otherwise would have. Microsoft felt it was worth obstructing the development of Windows-compatible applications where those applications would have been easy to port to other platforms. It is not clear whether, absent Microsoft’s interference, Sun’s Java efforts would by now have facilitated porting between Windows and other platforms enough to weaken the applications barrier to entry. What is clear, however, is that Microsoft has succeeded in greatly impeding Java’s progress to that end with a series of actions whose sole purpose and effect were to do precisely that. Continue reading here. About We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: This court case Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) retrieved on 2-13-2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

Too Long; Didn't Read

Boost your HackerNoon story @ $159.99! 🚀

The Effect of Microsoft’s Efforts to Impede Java: The Outcome That They Wanted Came True

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

DOE v. Github: Code Stored on GitHub Ultimately Belong to Their Authors

Meet AWS: HackerNoon Company of the Week

Meet Augment Code: HackerNoon Company of the Week

AI and the Prospect of a Post-Big Tech Internet

Could This Be the Best AI Video Generation Model? Alibaba Releases Wan 2.2

DOE v. Github: Code Stored on GitHub Ultimately Belong to Their Authors

Meet AWS: HackerNoon Company of the Week

Meet Augment Code: HackerNoon Company of the Week

AI and the Prospect of a Post-Big Tech Internet

Could This Be the Best AI Video Generation Model? Alibaba Releases Wan 2.2

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps