Day said Microsoft posted misleading advertising on its Web site claiming that its Java compiler complied with Sun's specification. He also said Microsoft distributes a non-compliant Virtual Machine when customers upgrade from Internet Explorer 4 to Internet Explorer 5, and that Microsoft has license agreements requiring third parties to use and distribute Microsoft's version of Java.
'Monopoly power'
Day also ran through various e-mails from Microsoft employees, including one from Senior Vice President Paul Maritz, showing that Microsoft intended to violate Sun's license agreement even before Microsoft signed it.
MS: We're in compliance
Ruby told Whyte the advertisement cited by Day has been removed from Microsoft's Web site and said therefore Whyte should not consider Microsoft's actions as being "consistent with bad behavior."
In an interview after the hearing, Sun attorney Lee Patch declined to be specific about Microsoft's agreements with third parties on non-compliant Java, saying the supporting documents are under seal.
Microsoft attorneys left quickly after the hearing and were not available for comment.
Whyte gave no indication of when he will rule.
"Microsoft has monopoly power over the desktop, and they are flooding the market," Day said. "It's like FTC versus Texaco, where Texaco used the power of its licensing agreements to require customers to purchase Goodrich tires and only Goodrich tires, and the U.S. Supreme Court termed it 'an incipient anti-competitive act.'"
Microsoft attorney Allen Ruby said Sun misconstrued the scope of the contract and so cannot accuse Microsoft of violating Sun's copyright. Ruby also said Microsoft has complied with the injunction. "Sun has laid not a finger but a big hand on the scales of compatibility and has said that Microsoft may not use its own intellectual property when writing Windows applications," he said.
