Sorry if this appears twice; I'm trying out a new NewsReader (since Outlook
Express is crashing a lot) and the new one is acting a little flaky.

From prior discussions, I know that you and I are not likely ever to agree
on these issues. But I do want to respond to your restatement of my
position, which is not a completely accurate representation of my position.

What I hold in this instance is this: Microsoft should be obliged continue
distributing a Java runtime runtime engine, which it has chosen to
distribute in the past, in conjunction with a product in its own product-
line (J++). Why?

(1) Because federal courts have found Microsoft guilty of having engaged in
anti-competitive practices related to that product (J++).

(2) Microsoft's customers have come to rely upon the presence of this

(3) Application developers for Windows have come to rely upon the presence
of this runtime.

Had Microsoft not been engaging in anti-competitive practices and abuse of
monopoly position, I would not hold this opinion, and would agree with you.

Tim Romano

"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>> wrote
in news:3b58211f$

> I cannot see anything anti-competitive in removing Java support from
> Windows XP. You seem to be suggesting that since MS is classified as a
> monopoly, it is obliged to distribute competing runtime platforms from
> it's competitiors as part of it's products. So if I released my
> kPlatform virtual machine technology for embedded
> scripting/development, can I count on MS being obliged to distribute my
> runtime or does this only apply to Java. If so why?

> As for the default security settings, there have been a few security
> exploits that involve the combined use of Active Scripting and Java
> aplets. I don't see a problem with turning off support for applets in
> mailboxes. The removal from the high security zone is a bit puzzling I
> admit. Bu given that Java is no longer supplied, what does it matter
> anyways?
> Kunle
> "Tim Romano" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns90E37340BBC0Btimromano@
>> I read that XP will not ship with a java runtime. If true, that will
>> strike a more severe blow to Java than the default security settings.
>> I agree that such moves are anti-competitive, in that they are
>> actions, taken by a monopolist, that disrupt applications using
>> competing technologies. Tim Romano
>> "Debbie Locker" <> wrote in
>> news:3b5584bc$
>> > [...]
>> > In XP, the default security settings in Outlook and Outlook Express
>> > will automatically block Java applets in user inboxes.

>> > [...]
>> > XP's security definition changes will block Java applets in
>> > browsers when administrators opt for high security settings.

>> > [...]
>> > To date, no Java applet has been linked
>> > to a large-scale virus outbreak via email or on the web. If XP's
>> > security settings that wrongly categorize Java continue, the real
>> > risk will be to innovation and open competition.
>> >
>> > Anyone concerned about innovation open competition should visit
>> >, or contact Microsoft directly.