Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Attempts to Block Oracle Bid for PeopleSoft
AliasF97 writes "Thought you all might be interested in this story about the U.S. government attempting to block Oracle's bid for PeopleSoft via a civil anti-trust lawsuit. Seems to me that the courts are going to have their work cut out for them on this one. Also, the photo of Ellison is kind of comical. If you were to throw a black cape and a tall hat on him, he could be a circus magician."
Can't they concentrate on microsoft instead? :P
"said the combination of Oracle and PeopleSoft would hurt competition in the market for software sold to large businesses."
So they would hurt large businesses... right and I am buying that microsoft not offering patches helps businesses.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
His picture makes him look like "the rock". The caption under the picture should say something like "can you smell what I'm cookin".....
Why isn't the /. crowd upset about this madman?
*boggle*
If you were to throw a black cape and a tall hat on him, he could be a circus magician. Now, if you but a black cape and stovepipe hat on him, he'd look exactly like Snidely Whiplash
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Where's the proof? I think before the feds stomp in to throw their weight around in the business arena, they better have a damn good reason they're spending my tax dollars to mess with the free market. And they'd better be prepared to prove it.
Since the threat of takeover looms until the case is resolved, or they drop their takeover bid, Oracle gets 'vaporware' benefits from having it out there, since long-term support for Peoplesoft products is threatened by the takeover, making potential customers wary of making a decision to buy now.
Also, the photo of Ellison is kind of comical. If you were to throw a black cape and a tall hat on him, he could be a circus magician.
A circus magician...with a net worth of about $15 billion.
This space intentionally left blank.
Maybe Larry doesn't contribute enough towards ... uh .. certain funding. Then again, maybe PeopleSoft has connections.
After the spying on the UN scandals in the news this morning my head is swimming.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm glad to see this! The Justice Department decision may have come after a big campaign from PeopleSoft, but that doesn't mean that blocking it is a bad thing for consumers. Working on Oracle Applications is like working in a gold mine: you've got to sift through 20 tons of mud to get 6 ounces of gold. Oracle needs healthy competition, and it could become a monopoly. I'd hate to see it become the the Microsoft of the ERP market.
Orcl - 13.27 down .01 .35
PSFt - 21.78 down
I'm going to make a prediction that because of this the news, Psft's prices are going to go up and Orcl will go down.
PeopleSoft has been fighting this tooth and nail. They actually seem like they want the keep the company. As opposed to just wanting to cash out and saying screw the people.
From this prespective, it seems like a Corporation is stucking UP to the Big Guy, instead of sticking it TO the little guy.
I have to completely agree here. Microsoft is encroaching more and more on antitrust, and the US courts do nothing to stop them.
Oracle isn't anywhere near monopoly, although they are a very strong database vendor, with probably one of the best supported database systems written, but they are competed against by everyone from Microsoft (which, btw is integrating their database engine into the OS), to us open source developers... The US Courts really need to pick their priorities better..
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
This shouldnt happen, but for different reasons (other then I'm working with PSoft at my uni, but anyway).
Ellison and his company bungled this one big time. They badmouthed the company, and on Larry King Live, Oracle openly stated that they would kill off the PS product line after the take over (besides the kill clause in their constitution which they didnt research, it was just a bad PR move). With Sparky being the job runner in earlier PeopleSoft releases, Conway made an interesting analogy that they were going to shoot his dog, and I can remember at the 2003 Peoplesoft Conference in the fall that Conway walked out on stage with his dog (both wearing a bullet proof vest), and proclaimed that he would not let his dog be shot and the crowd went wild.
This deal was just destined not to happen after Oracle's management bungled it. Read over at itmanagersjournal for an interesting history lesson at why they bungled it.
-- Page
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
...and I'll say it again. Ellison looks exactly like what you'd expect Satan to look like. All he needs is to add some horns.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Does your example extend to the RIAA? Are they satisfying their customers better than the competition? It's one thing to say that anti-trust laws are solving a problem that doesn't yet exist, but that doesn't explain away price-fixing of CDs.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
So how many of you read the article just to see Ellison's photo?
I'll be honest. I did.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I work for a major university in California. We're currently implenting Peoplesoft's Student Administration product. (Which is a giant piece of crap BTW, but it's better than other products out there. I wish we had developed our own solution.) If Oracle buys out Peoplesoft, we would have to spend millions to get a new product. (We don't believe Larry when he says that Oracle will continue to support Peoplesoft's products.) If you consider that this software is used by a large number of schools in the US, you can figure out that this will be a HUGE expense (Hundreds of millions of dollars) for all these schools to switch to some new product in a few years. Who will pay this cost? You will. Either in school bonds or higher student fees. Larry ain't gonna pay for it. He's got to pay for his jet fuel.
"You know Myra, some people might think you're cute. But me, I think you're one very large baked potato."
If you were to throw a black cape and a tall hat on him, he could be a circus magician.
No no no. If he was a circus magician, then Oracle's products would be affordable.
He's clearly a Vegas Magician. Same act, but the ticket costs $120 instead of $6.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
I would have to disagree. Just look at the mess that was going on in the railroad/steel industry before the trust laws were in force. If you think Billy G. is bad you should read up on J.P. Morgan. I'm usually one that is all for government staying out of private enterprise, but I would hate to imagine what kind of world we would be living in without Roosevelt and his trust-busting at the turn of the century.
He always looks comical to me. Like some kind of CEO-bot from the year 4000. I keep expecting his face shield to spring off to reveal metal and LEDs and servomotors. Either that or he gets a scratch on his cheek which reveals that his facial hair is actually painted on.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
This has been bugging me for a while now, and all the articles and things I've read seem to think it's a given.
WTF does peoplesoft do? Software vendor? What software?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
...who is also widely considered to be a complete nutcase and space-shot, with little credibility. He may be worth $15B, but who gets more press? He's widely ignored, because many concepts he's tried to champion have not just failed, they've imploded before they even left the launch pad. The whole thin-client netpc is a great example.
He's just too goddamned impressed with himself, and the picture is a perfect example of that attitude, and I'm sure it was selected(or provided) for that reason. The comparison to The Rock was perfect. Like Trump, Gates, Jobs, Fiorina- any time the focus shifts from someone's talents and qualifications to their personality, you've got yourselves a genuine cult figure and some serious problems. Things are all happy-shiny while the money's pouring in...but when the -water- starts leaking in, everyone's too busy looking at how great Master is to bail, and often even when the water's up to their necks they don't realize it's really time to mutiny, or jump ship altogether. One man or woman does not make an organization, and many a corporation has discovered the dangers of simply rubber-stamping and worshipping a central figure. Boards, VP's, etc all exist exactly to prevent this sort of thing.
Frankly, what amazes me the most is that there isn't a massive explosion when he and Steve Jobs are in the same room at Apple board meetings- Steve's Reality Distortion Field meets the Ellison Ego Field.
Lastly, never confuse wealth with success. Some of the world's richest people are miserable failures as human beings. I could name a dozen people I respect far more than Ellison, or any executive officer of any corporation.
Please help metamoderate.
There's something to that but pretty much everyone probably agress that some government interference in business is pretty much required to keep things in "balance" - whatever that is.
On the other hand, the underdog corporation is always the our favorite poster child for "The American Way/Dream/etc". Unless said corporation actually manages to follow through on their business plan and make it to the top. Then suddenly they become our new evil overlords and everything they do (even though they've been doing it for years) is anti-competitive.
In simplest terms, "nobody likes a winner".
Be happy. Nothing else matters.
Take an elementary economics course, please.
Satisfying your customers better than your competitors in the past does not mean you will do it in the future. Only competition does that. They need a choice.
Companies has the right to compete on the product or service they sell. This makes for better products and services, with more value for the customers. When they stop competing on the value of the product then there is a problem. That problem is what antitrust laws are meant to address.
A big enough company can elumiate opposition that produces a product with a better value. They do this by making sure that product cannot be sold, through one means or another.
This has happened in the past. That is why the antitrust laws were written, to prevent what had happened from happening again.
As for the Post Office (bad example: it is not a monopoly,) If there is a product or service best served by a monopoly (and there are some) then it is the government's job to fill that role. Because then and only then is the monopoly producer accountable to the people.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
"Also, the photo of Ellison is kind of comical. If you were to throw a black cape and a tall hat on him, he could be a circus magician."
Can you SMELL what Larry Ellison is COOKIN*' ?!!
*single eyebrow shoots up
I, for one, welcome our new Linux Dog Overlords.
Actually he kinda looks like Hank Scorpion, err Scorpio.
I'm a PeopleSoft employee, and am glad I can stop practicing my burger flipping skills.
Vonal Declosion
Since when do companies ever stop competing? You may have a case with oligopolies and collusion, but these are extremly rare.
And how do companies 'elumiate' the opposition? Usually it's by providing a cheaper good (Wal-mart) or a better good. If they do it through legislation then that is wrong and the law should be revoked.
The Post office IS a monopoly. No one is allowed to send mail under $0.50 to post boxes. Not because they won't be able to compete, but because the government says so. Just because it's not a necessarily 'evil' monopoly, its ineffeciencies justify its liquidation.
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
Better yet, ask anyone who used to work there... anybody still working there is under strict instructions not to reveal Ellison's true identity...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Oracle has made it clear their plan is to take Peoplesoft apart and get access to their customer base for Oracle software, phasing out Peoplesoft entirely. They basically want to buy Peoplesoft to eliminate a competitor, leaving the market to Oracle and SAS (the European gorilla in the field). This is not good for Peoplesoft or Peoplesoft customers (and there are a *lot* of them out there) or the market in general. This is only good for Oracle (duh). Many hear complain about Microsoft -- well, do you want another Microsoft in the tech field? Larry Ellison does. The US Government does not. By the way, the Peoplesoft stock price going down instead of jumping to 26 (the Oracle bid) says what the market thinks about the takeover happening.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
Oh, god, here we go again.
Yup! The same government that created one of the most famous of all monopolies and enforces it by preventing competition. Not a very useful law.
That makes no sense. The postal service is a government function. That's why congress was given the sole authority to create a postal service in the Constitution. Don't see people raising their own for-profit armies in the US, do you?
You're not laughing.
Yes I am. You amuse me.
If it weren't so common for government schemes to backfire completely, you'd probably think this was funny too.
That's why no government program ever works, and why we live in a squalid, impoverished anarchy.
It gets better. The antitrust laws are used against companies that practice "anticompetitive practices." What counts as "anticompetitive?" Anything aimed at doing better than your competition.
No, by that twisted logic every industry leader in every field would be the target of a federal suit.
Well, here's my last and favorite part. Even assuming that the government is right about everything (I know it's hard...just pretend), the laws are still worthless. The government assumes that if a single company becomes the sole producer in a market, they might jack up the price of their product, hurting the little guy
The laws weren't created in a vacuum--they were enacted BECAUSE of how monopolies were treating consumers.
Now, the main reason Objectivists dislike these laws is because they're a blatant initiation of force.
Objectivists don't like these laws because they're humorless, incredibly naive little people.
If a single producer jacking up his price is really the problem they're trying to solve, and given that they don't care about property rights in the slightest, why not wait until a single producer actually does do that? That's right. If they're going to trample rights, why not just wait until the "bad" thing has actually happened? By their own standards, the antitrust laws are useless.
Because prevention is better than a cure. Corporations aren't people. They shouldn't get the same rights.
Only since the advent of antitrust laws, which make them illegal.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Oh! yeah, you mean that postgres clone... shure!... who cares anyhow?
NO SIG
The way I see it, at least one good thing could come out of this. If Oracle and Peoplesoft merge, you can save money on certifications. Just think, they could all merge together into Micro-People-Orcl-soft and then maybe there'd be just ONE BIG TEST. And we could all run Linux instead.
Just my $0.55 (US inflation, 1774-2008, for $0.02)
I totally agree, we should let business operate unhindered by stupid government laws and regulations and other red tape. In fact we should get rid of the government. Private enterprise could do a much better job. The country would be much better off if the Mafia or the Hell's Angels ran things.
Seriously though, the makers of a documentary called "The Corporation" make a pretty good arguement that corporations are psychopathic. Not amoral (like a rock). Psychopathic (like Ted Bundy). I feel the need of some protection from them just as I feel the need of protection from the worst excesses of the government. That's why we have a democracy.
I work for a company that is in the throws of implementing PeopleSoft. When I first heard of the takeover bid from Oracle I was unhappy. (We would finish the implementation of PeopleSoft only to have to do it again with Oracle.) Now that I know PeopleSoft a little better, I no longer care. As far as I am concerned, PeopleSoft will milk the market for all its worth and provide as little in return as possible. In terms of business practices, predatary pricing is the rule at both Oracle and PeopleSoft. Both companies are basically thieves. Once you're locked in with one of these vendors you will pay ... and pay... and pay.
I fail to understand why the government has to butt into a private acquisition.If it was a govt firm being overshadowed or intimidated into selling out , it would have made sense.
If a company can afford to buy out another company there seems to be no logical reasoning for the govt to step into the matter.This means that with anti trust laws the govt can curb the growth of any company be it MS or Oracle or any power hungry firm which beats the whole idea of freedom of uhmm..whatever.
Besides Oracle does have the right to buy out anyone as long as they offer the right amount of $$!
Lord of the Binges.
..but I did LATFP
Maybe you should consider surfing Slashdot on your own bandwidth and on your own time.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
I have to say this is great news. I'm a long time employee, and I have skills that could take me to many companies, but I choose this one for many reasons.
/. praises when they hammer away at Microsoft for monopolizing the market... why would anyone here not support them on the same grounds for moving against Oracle?
Oracle started this bid and has continued it as a way of disrupting business, creating FUD, and trying to change PeopleSoft's market perception. I've worked with both products and I can tell you that there are very few who would claim Oracle's product, support or business tactics are better than PeopleSoft's. That's not saying that any ERP product doesn't have it's pitfalls, but our customers are some of the most loyal and it's not without good reason.
I'm all for the free market, but the proposed takeover would undoubtedly crush innovation and increase prices. It faces many regulatory hurdles, from a DOJ lawsuit, to a potential EU lawsuit on the same grounds and a States Attorneys General lawsuit should it go forward. These people are the same ones
I'm of the belief that anyone who wants this to go through is either paid by Oracle, has strong ties to Oracle, or is a short term investor. Larry has a magical way of using the "system" to his advantage and he has only done this to cause market confusion, disrupt PeopleSoft's business and drive up his sagging market share.
I'm of the belief he NEVER wanted to buy PeopleSoft. If Oracle truly wanted us, why not do it 2+ years prior when we were against the ropes? He would have gotten us on the cheap and had a nice chunk of customers. No, if he really wanted to buy PSoft, he would have never badmouthed the product, claim he was dropping support or any of the other shenanigans he's pulled. He's scared of the combined force of JDEdwards and PeopleSoft and the customer's he's been losing to us for years.
By the way, many PeopleSoft employees are ex-Oracle ones and every single one of them I know has said they will never work for Oracle again. Even current Oracle employees apologize for their boss... what does that tell you?
In the end, I have a feeling this will bite him on the ass.
Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it. -Samuel Johns
My university uses Peoplesoft as a vendor; we use them for class scheduling and managing class documents and communication. But they output some of the shoddiest HTML I've seen in a long time. It's a strange mix of HTML and CSS, and obviously hasn't been tested except on one browser. It's been published in our school's most-distributed newspaper: Use IE to avoid problems.
Our school's course management system is one of the more infuriating sites around. For instance, hitting enter in a form doesn't submit the form. Rather, it reloads the page. And blanks all of your entries. And you can't stop the reload.
I have a serious problem with Peoplesoft's products.
</rant>
I don't know or understand all of the stakes involved in the acquisition or lawsuit, but I have this to say: I can only hope that Peoplesoft cleans up its act (read: HTML output). I don't like having to use other people's computers when Firefox doesn't know how to deal the poor output.
I didn't realize BEA was a player in the applications market. I thought they sold tools and infrastructure, not ERP applications. (Newegg might use BEA to run their web server, but wouldn't go to BEA for, say, warehouse and order management software.)
Regarding why the DoJ didn't have a problem with PeopleSoft buying JD Edwards, perhaps its because that merger was arguably beneficial to the customers. PeopleSoft is weakest in areas like hard core distribution and direct sales (like what newegg does), and that's where JD Edwards really shines. JD Edwards, on the other hand, is weaker in some areas where PeopleSoft is stronger, such as with their technology infrastructure (PeopleSoft is all web based) and their HR package.
Another aspect of this is that maybe the DoJ could see this was perhaps Justice was legitimately conviced that this deal was bad for competition. More information available here, and here (Is Oracle the New Neighborhood Bully).
I worked for Oracle for three years, before they sold the division I work for.
.
Larry owns my new company too, but whatever . .
Ellison's parking space was right outside of the 500 building entrance. I saw him wandering around the parking lot, cell phone clamped to his ear, a few times. The space wasn't specially marked, just one of a bunch of reserved spaces.
Once, during a staff meeting, the boss mentioned that the division managers were trying to come up with text for a sign for Larry's spot, because people who didn't know better would park there.
The favorite suggestion:
EXIT INTERVIEW PARKING
Unlike M$, Oracle is about the best database out there. It has some seriously cool tech.
The bigger issue though, is that what Oracle does doesn't really affect us personally in any way. I mean, how many of us are running $10,000+ ERP software on are home desktops. If we use that stuff at all, it's only for work and if it is somewhat annoying, who cares?
Microsoft's largess actually affects our lives, some of us run Windows, or have seen OSs, software and companies we like crushed by them and their mediocrity.
How many of us have a personal love of peoplesoft?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
If none of the remaining 30% has above 5% (or even if they do), they can also be aquired by the monopoly. Or, the monopoly may choose to price the product/service below the cost and wait for the competition to go under. Or whatever.
Think about it as, say, a rocking chair. As long as it is rocked within a certain range, it is safe and will come back to the right position. But tilting it too far will flip it over. Likewise, a market for a particular service/product may lose stability when one participant becomes too big. The (inherently stupid and inefficient) government is the only force available, that can prevent the chair from falling or lift it up once it falls.
One can argue, that it is better to let some chairs fall once in a while, than to constantly impede the rocking of all chairs by the threat of government interference. I'm not sure, what I prefer, to be honest. But it is, certainly, not as simple, as the anonymous starter of this thread puts it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
That one of the main reasons anti-trust laws came to be was that corporations became so powerful that they could threaten the US government. Standard Oil could rase and lower oil proces at will, all across the US and they used that power to get concessions out of the government.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
It all has to do with campaign contributions. Ellison is a well known donor to democrats so he must be punished by Ashcroft. Just like Martha Stewart. Martha stewart is on trial because she prevented a 60 thousand dollar loss. Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers were never even tried for ripping of tens of billions of dollars from people. Bernie Ebbers alone accounted for nine billion dollars of fraud by worldcom.
Guess who those two contributed most money to?
The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
No, by that twisted logic every industry leader in every field would be the target of a federal suit.
Learn some history. This is precisely the argument the US Government used in an antitrust suit against Alcoa, that Alcoa was guilty of anticompetitive activities because they did their business too well.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The laws aren't just to prevent total monopolies, but to prevent a company from getting there through unfair practices in the first place, or from using a total monopoly or near-monopoly in one area to take over another. MS surely crossed this line a while ago, and they continue to do so. They own 95% of the desktop OS market. By comparison, Standard Oil held 85% of the oil market at their peak. The issue here isn't if you agree with the anti-trust laws themselves, the issue is that they aren't applied consistently. MS uses their monopoly in that market to gain monopolies in the markets of browsers, word processing, media players... the list goes on. This would be the equivalent of Ford having 95% of the car market, and all the sudden buying up a tire company, and constructing cars so that it was highly advantageous, or down right impossible, to use any other tire.