>>First, I really don't want to get into a long discussion on this issue, principally because I don't know the details of the settlement of Sun v. Microsoft. Having said that, but having read the AP release, it seems to me that if they can't distribute a VM the adheres to the current standard, what's the point of distributing any? Further, it would seem, given MS's current legal problems from them to make absolutely sure that any action in this area not only live up to the letter of the agreement but its spirit as well.
>>
>>If you have a different take on this, fine. Just seems from my POV something that I wouldn't get terribly upset about.
>
>You just reminded me of a good point: Being that under the current legal climate (with SUN in particular), MS has to be careful so as not to invite another SUN lawsuit. This reason more than justifies Microsofts action and I stand corrected in my rant. My only criticism now is that MS should be more straightforward with the press. This is why I used the word "perceived" above.

I think that the editorial on the subject on ZDNet pretty much hits the nail on the head. Sun got what it thought it wanted. How it'll play out is anyone's guess.

>George, you have always had a knack for straightening me out on things. < VBG >

< s >Well, now if someone can straighten me out...:-) Seriously, that wasn't my intention. I've said a number of times that we're all entitled to our opinions. When folks sit down (in this case virtually< g >) and discuss things in a civil way, it's to everyone's benefit.

Kindest Regards,