Windows? compatible JVM, to not share its work with either Sun or Netscape, much less allow Netscape to bundle the Intel JVM with Navigator. The sisters will also share a financial legacy, calculated using the amount of inheritance tax payable on his death, and they will receive a one-third share each of the rest of his estate. RMI. Microsoft undertook the effort to remove RMI from the rest of the Java class libraries, instead of simply leaving it in place and allowing developers to choose between it and Windows? Well, rest assured that our sites literally have something for everyone. We are all here to have fun, and each and every player should try and think before they say or do certain things. Confidence and arrogance are 2 different things Dale! 401. Microsoft took the further step of offering valuable things to ISVs that agreed to use Microsoft''s Java implementation.

The only effective way to ensure compatibility with Microsoft''s JVM was to use Microsoft''s Java developer tools, which in turn meant using Microsoft''s methods for making native calls and (unless the developers were especially wary and sophisticated) Microsoft''s other Java extensions. The result was that if a Java developer used the Sun method for making native calls, his application would not run on Microsoft''s version of the Windows JVM, show cam sex and if he used Microsoft''s native methods, his application would not run on any JVM other than Microsoft''s version. 402. In addition to the First Wave agreements, Microsoft entered an agreement with at least one ISV that explicitly required it to redistribute Microsoft''s JVM to the exclusion of any other and to rely upon Microsoft''s native methods to the exclusion of any other methods. Is there one regret you need to put right? The more that Java developers were able to satisfy their need for functionality by calling upon the Java class libraries, the more portable their applications would become. Made a throw away for this but I just really need to open up. 32?only java apps.'''' Microsoft refused to alter its developer tools until November 1998, when a court ordered it to disable its keywords and compiler directives by default and to warn developers that using Microsoft''s Java extensions would likely cause incompatibilities with non?

Microsoft encouraged developers to use these extensions by shipping its developer tools with the extensions enabled by default and by failing to warn developers that their use would result in applications that might not run properly with any runtime environment other than Microsoft''s and that would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to port to JVMs running on other platforms. 394. In a further effort intended to increase the incompatibility between Java applications written for its Windows JVM and other Windows JVMs, and to increase the difficulty of porting Java applications from the Windows environment to other platforms, Microsoft designed its Java developer tools to encourage developers to write their Java applications using certain ``keywords'''' and ``compiler directives'''' that could only be executed properly by Microsoft''s version of the Java runtime environment for Windows. The record contains no evidence that the relevant provision in the First Wave agreements had any purpose other than to maximize the difficulty of porting Java applications between Windows and other platforms. Microsoft therefore became interested in maximizing the difficulty with which applications written in Java could be ported from Windows to other platforms, and vice versa. Microsoft''s interest in preserving the difficulty of porting, Microsoft independently developed methods for enabling ``calls'''' to ``native'''' Windows code that made porting more difficult than the method that Sun was striving to make standard.

387. Although Sun intended Java technologies eventually to allow developers to write applications that would run on multiple operating systems without any porting, the Java class libraries have never exposed enough APIs to support full? B. Inducing Developers to Use the Microsoft Implementation of Java Rather than Sun? Therefore, Microsoft sought to ensure that, to the extent Java developers relied on RealNetworks'' technologies, they would not be relying on a Java implementation that complied with Sun''s standards. When Netscape announced in May 1995 that it would include with every copy of Navigator a copy of a Windows JVM that complied with Sun''s standards, it appeared that Sun''s Java implementation would achieve the necessary ubiquity on Windows. Java applications using Microsoft''s methods tended to run faster than ones calling upon Windows APIs with Sun''s method. With that in mind, the First Wave ISVs would not have any reason to distribute with their Java applications any JVM other than Microsoft''s. First, Microsoft made its JVM available to ISVs separately from Internet Explorer so that those uninterested in bundling browsing software could nevertheless bundle Microsoft''s JVM.

Thus, a very large percentage of the Java applications that the First Wave ISVs wrote would run only on Microsoft''s version of the Windows JVM. Specifically, in the First Wave agreements that it signed with dozens of ISVs in 1997 and 1998, Microsoft conditioned early Windows 98 and Windows NT betas, other technical information, and the right to use certain Microsoft seals of approval on the agreement of those ISVs to use Microsoft''s version of the Windows JVM as the ``default.'''' Microsoft and the ISVs all read this requirement to obligate the ISVs to ensure that their Java applications were compatible with Microsoft''s version of the Windows JVM. Windows.'''' Partly as a result of the damage that Microsoft''s efforts against Navigator inflicted on Netscape''s business, Netscape decided in 1998 that it could no longer afford to do the engineering work necessary to continue bundling up? Such agreements were also prohibited by the November 1998 injunction. Java applications using Sun''s developer tools. JVMs with Navigator. Consequently, it announced that, starting with version 5.0, Navigator would cease to be a distribution vehicle for JVMs compliant with Sun''s standards. Java runtime environment that complied with Sun''s standards would be installed on as many Windows PCs as Microsoft''s version, and that it would run Java applications as well as Microsoft''s, developers might have considered the cost in portability associated with relying on Microsoft?