I have no doubt that these developers had agreements with the company that any product they developed the company would own. (Own = traditional non-open-source total control, rights to market, rights to sue anybody who violated said rights, etc.)

What these developers point out is that Sun's management encouraged them to take this product -- which Sun would have otherwise 'owned' in the tradition sense -- open source. Once taken open source, Sun -- and indeed these developers -- relinquished traditional ownership rights.

In its place, these developers became "owners" (really just contributors and guiding forces over future development) of the now open-source code. Sun did not say 'we own this product now, so sign it over to us'. They said 'we know this is open source, but WE want to control future product direction -- so resign your guiding position and turn it over to Sun personnel'.

So, what was lost here wasn't 'rights' to 'own' something. It was the priveledge -- earned by putting effort into the product -- to guide future development. In the open source community, such 'takeovers' are not supposed to happen. Nor should they even be necessary -- unless, as I suspect some believe, Sun is trying to control the direction in which the product goes. (For example, if they felt that the product was a threat to a product they actually DO 'own' in the traditional sense, they might want to stifle its continued development.)

So, the point is not 'who owns the code' -- it's too late for that. It is 'why does Sun, who says they believe in the mantra of open source, go and do something that flies in the face of that mantra?' As the article states, the answer may be as simple as some out-of-control middle managers acting out of step with the company's open source direction. Or, it could be something more insidious... Either way, Sun loses credibility in the open source community.