Slashdot Mirror
PeopleSoft Deflects Oracle Takeover, So Far
SuperDuG send a link to this Reuters report on the Oracle's takeover bid for PeopleSoft, specifically questioning Oracle's committment to PeopleSoft. SuperDuG writes: "A letter from CEO Craig Conway states 'Five days following our announcement we learned of a hostile bid by Oracle Corperation to acquire PeopleSoft. Incredibly, Oracle made it clear their intention was to discontinue all PeopleSoft products, ultimately forcing customers to convert to Oracle's application and database.' Seems the dirt is being slung by both sides and the SEC is about to takeover and decide if this is even legal under anti-trust laws."
Actually quite the opposite is true. Oracle states that it will continue support of People Soft products for the next 10 years. (Version 8)
...because I think Oracle has its hands full making sure that its own software works.
From a June 3rd San Francisco Examiner article:
Running the combined company will be left to PeopleSoft CEO Craig Conway, who recently came under fire for taking $14.6 million in restricted stock, as well as a large package of stock options, last year while the company's sales suffered.
PeopleSoft estimated the 4.1 million stock options awarded Conway will be worth between $67 million and $171 million, depending on how the company's shares perform through November 2012.
From today's Reuter's article:
a $6.3 billion hostile takeover bid from Oracle Corp
If I were Craig Conway, I certainly wouldn't mind this.
He has also said that Oracle while they will still support PeopleSoft's current products, they won't be continuing PeopleSoft's line of products.
Any new features will only be in Oracle's own products. If customers want new features in their software, then they have to switch to Oracle.
Considering that many of PeopleSoft's customers ask for new features, and PeopleSoft generally tries to please their customers, I wouldn't really call Oracle's "support" the equivalent of PeopleSoft's support.
That is a pretty sneaky tactic. I am not sure if there is any legality to it, but it might not matter.
Funny, I thought it was a fairly common practice. Typically, it's called a 'poison pill'.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
A few days ago I saw the back cover of a trade mag (I forget which one) which was a full-page ad from Oracle stating that they wouldn't discontinue any PeopleSoft product now or in the future, that they would continue to support those products, and continue to maintain them. Of course, conversion to Oracle tools would be discounted.
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
Oracle's ad on the back of BusinessWeek(which usually compares Oracle to DB2) has a promise by Oracle to continue supporting Peoplesoft products. This is the list of bullet points on the ad(i am summarizing some of the points and PS=peoplesoft) 1. We will not shutdown PeopleSoft products 2. You will not be forced to convert to Oracle E-Business suite applications 3. ..continue truly high quality, truly global customer service for peoplesoft product...
4. Extend support for PS products beyond the timeframe PS itself has committed to and into the next decade.
5. We will take no actions that reduce the functionality of your PS implementation.
6....will increase the value of your PS investment
7. If and only if you elect to do so, you may move to ORacle E-business suite via FREE module-for-module upgrades
It ends by "Dont be a victim of scare tactics".
The last para is interesting "Ask any customer from our RDB database acquisition from DEC. Nearly nine years later, we are still providing ...suppport...rdb customers"...
A couple short points. First, to correct the original post, the SEC is not the agency that handles antitrust matters. The FTC and the DOJ have joint power to enforce the Sherman and Clayton Acts.
Second, currently, the Oracle/Peoplesoft combination is being reviewed by the DOJ. The DOJ has issued what's called a "Second Request", which is literally a second request for more information about the companies involved. In any merger that meets certain threshold requirements, the companies desiring to merge must file a notice with the feds under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (part of the antitrust laws). If the reviewing agency (the FTC and DOJ sometimes fight over the right to review certain transactions) is wary of the merger, they'll ask for some preliminary information; they'll try to get a better idea of what the market impact might be. (This is sometimes called a "Quick Look.") If there's a big impact, the reviewing agency will often make a "Second Request" for information in order to more precisely define the markets (or market) that the companies compete in. The Second Request is often a rather broad net that asks for a ton of primary source information -- people's email, drafts of documents, presentations, notes in notepads, even the stuff written on people's whiteboards in their offices!
Once the reviewing agency gets all the info (when the companies certify that they have "substantially complied" with the second request), it has 30 days to sift through all of it and come up with a decision as to whether it will file suit to enjoin the merger.
Oracle got its Second Request at the end of June (they're the only ones getting a formal review right now because of the hostile nature of Oracle's transaction). I don't think they've substantially complied yet, so this process may take a while.
Not to mention they tend to depend on Oracle anyway, so this takeover actually makes sense.
Actually, development for psoft is done on SQL Server, not on Oracle, and PSoft does support a range of databases.
Oracle on the other hand only runs on oracle, which is why so many customers are opposed to this takeover.
Oracle has said, however, that they will continue to support Peoplesofts existing applications for much longer than even Peoplesoft plans on supporting them.
So, in a nutshell, it appears that this poison pill won't be effective and Peoplesoft is just trying to scare its customers.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."