Microsoft extended the JDK with VisualJ++, by introducing their COM based version of JNI. They claimed that the result was the same thing; now Google reimplemented the JDK while keeping the same API. that makes a subtle difference. I wonder what would have happened if Microsoft were to have sold VisualJ++ as 'Microsoft JDK'.
The problem was, code written for J++ wouldn't run on "regular" Java outside of Windows, effectively killing the cross-platform aspect of Java and turning it into another Visual Basic.
that's what i meant: by naming it a windows jdk they would not imply to be cross platform. they could then argue that they implemented the same sdk for their platform only. (interesting if Oracle tried to argue that the same logic should apply in this case too).
