Let MSFT and Sun Bicker, it doesn't matter
I don't have a problem with Microsoft's decision.
If SUN thinks they have the perfect Java implementation, let SUN ship it. If customers want it, they'll get it.
Yes, it means Windows (out-of-the box) doesn't support Java, so it makes the MAC a better Java platform.
But hey, let's get real. Java is not a client platform (in large quantity) right now, it's doing much better on the server.
FinalCut, iMovie, PhotoShop, a gee.... I think these are written in C (either Objective-C or C++) and use Carbon or Cocoa. They can't use Java because Java's performance SUCKS. Yes, there are a few sites on the web that use Java (like the Weather Channel, etc), but they really don't need it (they could have made an animated .GIF instead).
Java is a server language. You aren't going to choose your Desktop OS based upon a server language. If you are a SUN (or UNIX) server shop, you'll think Java support is important. If you are a Windows Server shop, you don't give a crap about Java. You'll write in VB, C# or another language tuned for Windows.
Leave the courts out of this. Yes, I'm frustrated by some of MSFT's moves, but c'mon this battle was decided long ago.
Remember when Java first was available on the web, every site put up some stupid Java app (CNN had their stock ticker, etc, etc). After a million customers complained about the lowsy performance, all those sites pulled their Java apps from their web sites (including SUN's very own web site). There are many ways to make good web pages without needing Java. Remember, Java was proposed for web sites before all the web site scripting came into being (JavaScript, VBScript, etc).
So, until Java's performance mimics that of native apps (or processors get so fast we won't care), Java on the client is not that exciting. Let Sun and Microsoft have their legal quabbles, let's instead spread the merits of the world's best GUI on a time-proven Unix micro-kernel core. MAC OS X.