I am certainly not saying that Sun nailed it, quite the obvious, however this position, this article you wrote, is a counter marketing point and will only confuse those with less than an acute attention for the obvious.
I'm not sure I understand? Just because his company recieves funding for a p2p project means he's automatically disqualified from critising? I can't recall him stating the solution he's working on is better then Sun's (or universally applicable to all P2P problems!). In fact, he's saying that there's too many different framework's and approaches at the moment to have a cure-all solution. Frankly, I don't see how much it will help considering a large portion of P2P problems havn't been solved yet. (can we say SCALING?)
I assume you have other arguments on WHY Sun's approach is a good one, or reason's the the problem's presented are baseless? Or is your only problem political? And if so, Why isn't Sun guilty of over-hyping this, since there interest in this is Purely money? (Look at Jini's licensing! Rediculous. And not turning Java over to be standardized!)
From what I understand of this "technology", it's just another helper library that probably won't get much adaptation, because the problems it solves only make it easier for a small scope of devlopers (and that not by much). Very similar to the way DirectPlay is used for games - developers use some features, but "roll there own" for the critical stuff. I find this especially true when thinking of SOAP, XML-RPC, etc.