Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Threatens Oracle Over Benchmarks
n8willis writes "ZDnet is reporting that Microsoft is now threatening to sue Larry Ellison if he doesn't stop saying that Microsoft SQL Server only performs well on benchmarks, not real apps. The meaty part of this story is MS's claim that Ellison's comments violate the SQL Server license agreement, which requires permission before publishing any benchmarks. A dubious term to begin with, if you ask me, but in this case, Ellison is demonstrating the software head-to-head in his speeches, not publishing anything." Frankly, I don't care about it being Microsoft or not - any company deciding that any like this is proprietary is ridiculous. I mean, if I wanted to publish database results, does this mean I can't write a report about it?
> This is typical of the Slashdot mentality
What mentality exactly are you talking about? The idea that after I've read a book and people ask me how I liked it, I shouldn't be able to share that opinion? Or the idea that car magazine journalists test driving a new car shouldn't be allowed to publish its top speed or any possible shortcomings? Unless you've been living under a rock sheltered by warmth and humidity, you would know that it's far from only the Slashdot community that is dissatisfied with the state of EULAs today, and that Microsoft in particular takes all kinds of liberties with them. By saying that if you don't agree with the EULA you shouldn't use the software you are trivializing the matter beyond any reasonable discussion.
The conflict between Oracle and Microsoft on the topic of database performance has been extremely nasty of late. Essentially, Oracle was taken entirely by surprise when some respected tests revealed that SQL2000 on Win2k beats the pants of Sun/Oracle peformance.
:-)
You can see the benchmarks here: TPC tests
The margin by which Oracle is beaten must be pretty humiliating when they are competing for the same account. Oracle and Sun have attempted all sorts of dirty tricks to disqualify the results, and TPC even removed them at one point, but MS has always fixed the technicality and pumped out even higher results at even lower prices.
Hence Oracle's recent market promise that if they can't triple your speed they will give you a million dollars. Some of us inside have joked about setting up a really badass SQL service and getting that million as a stunt
At any rate, I am not surprised that the two companies eventually are coming to slights and legal maneuvering. Oracle knows quite well that they are one of the companies Microsoft has marked as "Make irrelevant in five years" and they really don't want to go the way of Lotus, Corel, etc.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Two companies with the most disgusting EULAs on the planet attacking each other. No matter which one comes out on top, humanity wins. Kind of like a fight to the death between the Spice Girls and Hanson. I like it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
A EULA with this sort of verbage in it would stand no chance in court of being upheld. It is very similar to the sale of a book with the provision that it not be placed in a library. Coming at a time when the entire M$ anti-trust thing is coming up for review, it smacks of stupidity/ego on the part of someone at M$, rather than merit.
One of the conditions for a healthy free market is that the consumers can freely choose between competing products. How is that possible if corporations are able to prevent the publication of less flattering reviews of their products or test the products themselves (which could be made impossible by the UCITA backed shrink-wraps)?
Not allow benchmarks to be published without permission seems to be the standard for the database companies. I know Microsoft, Oracle, Sybase, and Informix all do this.
The EULA for most hardware CAD design software (titles like PowerPCB & Orcad) reads (in summary) like this:
-You can't use this software in any manner designed for figuring out how fast it is.
-You can't benchmark this software. You can't publish benchmarks of this software. You can't sell it to someone who will publish benchmarks. You don't own the software, but if it's stolen, and someone makes benchmarks with your copy, you're liable.
-By agreeing to this license, you agree that
-We may inspect your premises with a software agent team at any time, 24/7/365. If you are not there to assist us with entering your premises, we may let ourselves in.
-We may recall your license electronically at any time, for any reason.
... i could go on but my fingers hurt.
Software that sells for 100k a copy doesn't mess around with wimpy licenses like the one at issue.
The real problem is the UCITA.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Not like people haven't built systems to score high in benchmarks before. Revealing this nefarious tactic is what Freedom of The Press is all about, particulary in spirit. Larry's got Bill's buds on this one.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Obviously, I'm half-joking here. Only half, as if it does state in the license agreement that you have to have permission to publish benchmarks, then they really have no choice but to sue. They will lose, as the article indicates that Ellison is _not_ publishing his results, merely demonstrating them. Others are publishing reports about his (Ellison's) demonstrations. I don't fault Ellison for making his remarks. He is the head of a rival company. I just hope MS does sue. They need to lose another case.
Eric Gearman
--
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
Oracle has the same rules. They prohibit the publication of benchmarks of their database too. I'm guessing it's for that reason that they're trying to circumvent microsoft's restriction without out and out breaking it. I've seldom seen a more odious term in a EULA.
--
Does this strike anyone else as just plain dumb? I mean it's like a small child going to mommy cause the bully told the whole class he picks his nose. IMHO Microsoft should worry less about who's saying what about what, and worry more about actually making a decent product that would stand up in these demonstrations.
The reasoning behind it is that the testing is to be performed under VERY precisely defined & controlled conditions, to prevent unscrupulous people from skewing the data.
In light of the Mindcraft debacle, most slashdotters should be able to at least understand the motivation involved, if not the practice itself.
Imagine using two computers for a database benchmark, but using a *slightly* different model hard drive in one (from the very same drive vendor, even) but with a 10% slower seek time. You better bet that benchmark will be skewed, and it would be HIGHLY unlikely anyone would catch it.
Everyone knows Ellison shoots his mouth off -- a lot. On the other hand, personally, I have more respect for the guy with cojones than whiny Bill threatening to sue.
God, threatening to sue. Pathetic. That's a sure indicator, Bill's panicking.
Anyway, I work for Oracle but don't speak for them, etc.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
I'd really like to see that one go to court, it's a great example of how out of control license agreements are getting. Ever read any? In the MS Office 2000 agreement, it basically states that if your business should fail due to a bug or flaw in the software, Microsoft isn't liable. Or America Online "Your sole remedy of any dispute with AOL is the immediate cancellation of your account," I got confirmation from AOL on that one, it basically means that you can't sue them, unless you can catch them in a breach of contract. I say all of this because as many would agree, license agreements are getting out of hand, many times when you break the seal on a CD case, it says that by breaking the seal you agree to the enclosed agreement ... the one that you can't read until after you break the seal.
How soon until we will be giving up our first born to these agreements?
Also, with that MS one from office, wouldn't that be something like General Motor's selling a call with a license agreement that says "If at any time this vehicle should suddenly explode for no apparent reason, GM is not responsible." Yea, right, Ford in being sued over their explorer and Firestone about their tires, such a thing would never hold up in court, and I for one think it's time for someone to challenge some of the ridiculous license agreements out there.
Lets see GM tell Consumer Reports that they don't want CS crashing cars and telling people how they fair.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans