Slashdot Mirror


EC Formally Objects To Oracle's Purchase of Sun

eldavojohn writes "The EC has presented Oracle and Sun with a statement of objections. Despite the promotion of former MySQL CEO Marten Mickos, the statement seems to focus entirely on what many have feared: MySQL vs. Oracle databases. From Sun's 8-K SEC filing: 'The Statement of Objections sets out the Commission's preliminary assessment regarding, and is limited to, the combination of Sun's open source MySQL database product with Oracle's enterprise database products and its potential negative effects on competition in the market for database products.' The EU and the EC are getting a rep for disagreeing with US counterparts." On Monday afternoon the DoJ reiterated its support for the deal. Matthew Aslett has a helpful timeline of the action from the EC.

49 of 334 comments (clear)

  1. I Object! by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, I'd object to their purchasing the sun as well!!

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  2. What is the EC?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The European Commission (formally the Commission of the European Communities) acts as an executive of the European Union. The body is responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and the general day-to-day running of the Union.

  3. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    European Commies

  4. EC objects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What do DC and Marvel think?

  5. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The EC is.. who now?

    EC is European Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

  6. Why does Oracle need MySQL anyway? by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Just spin it off, keep a small interest that will prevent the spun-off unit from going rogue, and claim victory.

    I seriously don't see why Oracle needs MySQL.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Why does Oracle need MySQL anyway? by Znork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I seriously don't see why Oracle needs MySQL.

      Frankly, Ellisons refusal to spin it off is the strongest indication that the purpose of acquiring MySQL as part of the deal is anti-competitive. As you say, it's not as if Oracle really needs it, so it shouldn't be this much of an issue.

    2. Re:Why does Oracle need MySQL anyway? by NoYob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I seriously don't see why Oracle needs MySQL.

      Product mix - as the marketing guys call it. MySQL has a market that Oracle doesn't. How many folks use Oracle as their back end for their websites? Now they have products that cover more of the market for RDMSs; which I believe, makes them the leader, but by no means able to control the market as the EC fears.

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    3. Re:Why does Oracle need MySQL anyway? by whitelabrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      MySQL is open source. Oracle gets branding, not the code. For all intensive purposes Oracle could spin it's own MySQL right now, and call it Oracle MyPL/SQL.

      Bunch a EU whiners.

  7. Oracle's reasons *are* monopolistic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's see...MySQL brings in ~50M a year, Sun is losing 100M a month. Makes no sense why Oracle would want to delay, except for monopolistic reasons.

    1. Re:Oracle's reasons *are* monopolistic! by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's see...MySQL brings in ~50M a year, Sun is losing 100M a month. Makes no sense why Oracle would want to delay, except for monopolistic reasons.

      Last I heard, Oracle doesn't want to delay. It's the European Commission that wants to delay Oracle.

      As for "monopolistic reasons": Between IBM, Microsoft, Teradata, PostgreSQL, etc, how can Oracle possibly be said to have a monopoly on databases?

      You seem to be suggesting that Oracle wants to destroy the market for MySQL. As the largest database vendor in the world, how does it benefit Oracle to destroy any market for databases, however large or small?

      And that's assuming it's even possible for Oracle to do what you suggest. Even if the goal is merely to destroy the market for low-cost databases, I don't see how Oracle could do that. There is no shortage of low-cost (free) alternatives to MySQL -- PostgreSQL, Firebird, SQLite, the list goes on.

      If Oracle doesn't immediately cave in to the European Commission, have you considered the possibility that it might be because Oracle plans to grow the MySQL market, and that even at $100 million/month, it has not yet sacrificed enough profit to make up for all the money it plans to make from MySQL in the coming years?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Oracle's reasons *are* monopolistic! by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As for "monopolistic reasons": Between IBM, Microsoft, Teradata, PostgreSQL, etc, how can Oracle possibly be said to have a monopoly on databases?

      The job of the EC anti-trust commission is to prevent monopolies before they happen, not punish them when they do (the way the Sherman act works in the US). So their fear is not that Oracle would be a monopoly, but that it comes too close to being able to corner the market. You don't need a monopoly for that, just a commanding influence.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  8. I disagree by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oracle is marketed as an high-end database product/set of services. MySql is a low-end one (and please, don't misinterpret this as shot against it). Now, I'm not saying that you won't find companies replacing their Oracle database with a MySql one, but those are very few and far between. Between Oracle and MySql, there are actually quite of slew of decent alternatives (both proprietary and open source).

    1. Re:I disagree by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Interesting

      MySql is a low-end one (and please, don't misinterpret this as shot against it).

      But MySQL is low end. It's about as low end as you can go without using MS Access.

      Is it a shot against it if what you're saying is true?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:I disagree by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What about the Berkeley DB they bought? They'll just need postgresql and sqlite next.

      And how would Oracle "buy" either of those? And why? PostgreSQL is BSD-licensed and SQLite is public domain. Oracle is free to start selling its own version of either package tomorrow, if it felt like it.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    3. Re:I disagree by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think Oracle's target market are the web 2.0 cowboys who originally went with MySQL, grew up and realized they needed something more robust, and are currently tied to MySQL because those other alternatives would break their extremely MySQL-specific code. If Oracle can provide a flawless backwards compatibility layer for MySQL, they'd have an edge over the other guys.

  9. Re:Okay... by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC

    Effectively, it's the EU.

    Population of EU is about 500 million vs. 308 million for the USA, so the EC is kinda significant.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  10. Is company health considered? by wandazulu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As I remember it (and I could be remembering it wrong), Sirrus and XM were allowed to merge because the likelihood of both companies continuing without a merger were essentially nil.

    Would the EU perform a similar analysis on Sun and figure that, given its situation, the option is either merge with Oracle or go bankrupt, in which case the situation is, conceptually, the same because either way Sun ceases to be a player. Or do they not consider this and simply line up the bullet points, see too much overlap, say no to the merger (which is not the same as an objection, I realize), and just hope that Sun can pull it together by itself?

    1. Re:Is company health considered? by Znork · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the option is either merge with Oracle or go bankrupt

      If Sun goes into reorganization or liquidation assets like MySQL would probably be sold off and Oracle would likely be blocked as a buyer of MySQL, so the EC's main objection would be resolved in an acceptable fashion either way. The purpose of government in a competitive free market should be exactly that; prevent anticompetitive behaviour and structures, not support failing companies.

  11. Re:Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If I posted this about the acronym "US" you can be damn sure I would mbe modded troll in a heartbeat.

    And they are?

  12. Re:Okay... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bah. You can't count those Europeans as a whole person!

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  13. Since when did the Oracle move from Athens?!?! by NoYob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mod parent up, I'm tired of the /. eds assuming i know what every god damned acronym means. (Sure I can google it, but usually I just move on)

    That's assuming you get right definition of "EC". Everyone here seems to assume that googling things will give you the correct or relevant answer.

    For example, I googled it and E. Coli doesn't want Oracle in Athens to predict what Apollo will say.

    So there!, "why don't you google it" Nazis!

    --
    It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
  14. Re:F the EC by int69h · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually they're multinational companies, and Oracle stands to lose a fair chunk of change if they can't do business in EU countries. Not that I agree with this retarded group's findings. The whole "Can't sustain development without being able to sell proprietary licenses" is bunk. Plenty of opensource projects thrive without being able to sell proprietary licenses. Linux springs to mind.

  15. Not sure I get the EC ruling by rcolbert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is somewhat like preventing Mercedes-Benz from buying Kia in order to prevent a monopoly. As well-stated earlier, Oracle doesn't compete against MySQL often if at all. IBM and Microsoft appear to be the most legitimate competition Oracle has in their DBMS space, and MySQL wouldn't seem to impact the competitive balance all that much. Having said that, who would want MySQL? Cisco, HP, and EMC don't seem like good choices because they all have product families that each would hate to have to tie to a 'Runs Best with MySQL' campaign. Red Hat makes sense from a certain point of view, but I'm not sure they want to diversify into the DBMS space.

    1. Re:Not sure I get the EC ruling by mbrod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see many people, you included, thinking of this in terms of what MySQL is now. It would be terribly short sighted for every merger and acquisition evaluated by the appropriate regulatory bodies to look at it in that way. They need to look at in terms of what MySQL could grow in to. What MySQL could grow in to is what Oracle would compete with. Which is why Oracle wants to squash it and eat it. EC is right on and will stop this.

  16. Re:Mod parent up by Stupendoussteve · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They didn't post EU. If I posted NGA would you automatically know what I was talking about?

  17. Re:F the EC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They can and will fine them, just like they fined Microsoft and Intel. You don't pay? Get fined again. Still don't want to pay? Do your business elsewhere and say bye bye to the biggest market in the world.
    If you want to make business within the EU abide you will have to abide to the rules.

  18. And Europe can let get in their say.... by paulsnx2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IBM may be doing what they can to stir the pot on this. With each delay, Sun's survival is more in question, and more business can be sucked away from Sun by IBM.

    The objection (that Oracle will have "control" of an Open Source product like MySQL) is absolutely absurd. First of all, there is nothing Oracle can do to prevent others from continuing to update and support MySQL under GPL. Many Open Source projects continue under GPL. MySQL has a huge "out of Oracle's reach" GPL effort already.

    Secondly, the database market is dynamic with many new competitors entering the field. MySQL as a relational database faces competition from a host of nonSQL databases whose performance and capacity relational databases cannot match.

    The real problem with the merger is politics for profit and spite. Heaven forbid the EU allows two American companies to merge. The EU likes to keep their own mergers to a minimum .... like with Airbus?

  19. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, the current european-american exchange rate is about 1 to 1.5, so you should count each of us as 1.5 person.

    (no seriousness intended)

  20. Re:Okay... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

    They have socialized healthcare, i.e. euthanasia committees, so by next week they'll all be dead.

    Stephen Hawking might escape, if his wheelchar can make it to the US embassy (free sovereign soil! NUMBER ONE!) in time.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  21. A Rep? by theillien · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to the article the last time the EU/EC contravened a takeover was when they denied General Electric's takeover of Honeywell in 2001. I'd hardly call two denials in a decade a reputation for disagreeing with the US on these matters.

    1. Re:A Rep? by 0x000000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why should the US be able to decide what is good for Europe and its consumers? Sun and Oracle have the choice of no longer doing business in Europe at which point the EC won't have anything to do with their merger!

      US regulations suck for consumers, whereas the EC attempts to work for the consumer. That is the reason for the difference, and whether you like it or not that is how it will continue to be done as multi-nationals can't just stop selling in the EU or the US just because one of them is more favourable towards two of them merging.

      --
      cat /dev/null > .signature
  22. Good Business by Virtucon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oracle is pursuing a very good business model with the Sun aquisition.

    1) Eliminate somebody else from buying them, like IBM.
    2) Get all that neat Java stuff
    3) Some hardware engineering but that SPARC stuff really isn't competitive.
    4) Get MySQL and finally kill it by letting it wither. MySQL is probably the biggest threat right now to Oracle's dominance in the database marketplace. My controlling
    it they can drive the software literally into the ground.

    It was a $7B bargain.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Good Business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you think MySQL is any threat to Oracle, then you don't understand anything about the commercial database market.

    2. Re:Good Business by swordgeek · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Some hardware engineering but that SPARC stuff really isn't competitive."

      Really?

      How much do you know about "that SPARC stuff?" It's true that x86 has finally surpassed a lot of the things that Sparc led the way in, but there are still ways that traditional Sparc scales better.

      Now moving to the next generation of Sun's gear, we have hardware virtualisation and CoolThreads. Under a hundred grand will buy you a system with four 8-core CPUs, and each core can process eight simultaneous threads. That is OLTP nirvana! Too much power? Chop it up into a handful of smaller servers, each running their own OS. Any one of them can in turn be split into zones--soft OS partitions.

      I keep hearing about how Sparc is obsolete, and yet the new generation of Sparc processors and supporting hardware is pushing the state of the art that Intel and AMD aren't even planning in yet.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    3. Re:Good Business by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 2

      According to MySQL's site, Oracle and MySQL comprise around 52% of the of all deployed databases. If you don't understand that authorizing a deal which would enable a company which already controls 47% of the market share to form a company that controls such a dominant stake in the database market is bad for the market then you would most certainly benefit from investing a couple of minutes thinking about this subject.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    4. Re:Good Business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Despite your rant, and despite some truth to some of your observations, there is hope yet. Sun's biggest mistake is that they have been run by children.

      Rock was in process for 15 years and never shipped a part. 600 engineers x 15 years, and you wonder that they were not bankrupt years ago. Off to the side, you had folks at Sun building small, fast, low power servers. The whole Niagara line. They didn't get that much respect from their childish management, but they shipped parts.

      These servers are available today. And Oracle has already pushed Sun to kill Rock. Sans the dead weight, plus a drive to support their own products, Oracle may very well turn the ship around. And if they do, it will be because they make Sun run like a business, and not like some after school club.

      Of course, all of this only drives the point home that the more competitive move is to allow the merger, and do so quickly. If Sun's hardware goes off into the night, exactly who is left producing parts besides Intel and IBM?
       

    5. Re:Good Business by bertok · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Some hardware engineering but that SPARC stuff really isn't competitive."

      Really?

      How much do you know about "that SPARC stuff?" It's true that x86 has finally surpassed a lot of the things that Sparc led the way in, but there are still ways that traditional Sparc scales better.

      Now moving to the next generation of Sun's gear, we have hardware virtualisation and CoolThreads. Under a hundred grand will buy you a system with four 8-core CPUs, and each core can process eight simultaneous threads. That is OLTP nirvana! Too much power? Chop it up into a handful of smaller servers, each running their own OS. Any one of them can in turn be split into zones--soft OS partitions.

      I keep hearing about how Sparc is obsolete, and yet the new generation of Sparc processors and supporting hardware is pushing the state of the art that Intel and AMD aren't even planning in yet.

      Umm... what?

      First of all, for "a hundred grand", I can buy 10 systems that add up to 80 Intel 3Ghz cores (160 threads) with 720GB of memory, which is going to shit all over that SUN box with its anemic 1Ghz processors. That's retail pricing, in Aussie dollars! Including tax! Delivered to your door in under a week, assembled!

      Meanwhile, to get that SUN box, I'd have to "call your nearest SUN dealer". Oh good, I can't wait to have him explain to me how spending $100K is going to "save me money", or something.

      I'll grant you that 32 cores in a single box is needed for those rare cases where you need "one big box to rule them all", but SUN has dropped the ball on that too:

      Intel is releasing their 2GHz+ 8 core, 16 thread Nehalem-EX processors this year (or very early next year), and it has glue-less scaling to 8 processor sockets (64 cores, 128 threads) and a jaw-dropping 128 DIMM sockets. With the dirt-cheap 4GB DIMMs that most people are buying, you could pack in 512GB into a single box for a mere $24K. Again, that's retail pricing, in Aussie dollars, including tax.

      Meanwhile, IBM is about to ship their 4GHz+ 8 Core, 32 thread POWER7 CPU, which scales to 32 sockets. In case you missed that, it's 4x the clock rate and 8x the sockets, or 32x the performance of that SUN server.

      Not to mention that both IBM and Intel processors have had virtualization (same thing as "zones" or "partitions") for a long time now, and can run more than one kind of OS side-by-side. The POWER processors can run various IBM operating systems as well as Linux, and Intel is compatible with damned near anything, including Solaris.

      Face it, SPARC is dead, the big-boys are making chips with several times the power, for a fraction of the cost. (admittedly, POWER7 isn't going to be cheap)

      PS: I'm not surprised SUN is generally losing their market share, even their x86 kit is overpriced. I personally love the concept of the SUN Thumper ZFS-based storage array, and was all excited about it, right up until I saw their pricing model: They only go to up to 1TB drives, and it's actually cheaper to buy the model with 250GB drives, then throw the drives out, and go buy 48 replacement 2TB SATA drives from a retail store. That's 2x the storage for 1/2 the cost. Insanity.

      I think SUN forgot that some of their potential clients can count.

    6. Re:Good Business by Virtucon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Intel and IBM producing parts may very well be the last two in terms of processor technology houses. AMD will be there but they've missed opportunities as well and it's hurt them in the data center market. I think you'll see the Power architecture start to feel pressure too as more x86 multicores come into fruition.

      I was looking forward to Rock but I also have to believe that because it was never on time or delivered there were fundamental design issues that weren't fully understood or disclosed. Niagra was behind too, and in this business your customers are always wanting things to be delivered on time. I was in a few large Sun shops and nothing frustrated upper management more than seeing the next generation hardware pushed off all the while HP and IBM were delivering on their promises.

      That at the crux is why Sun went cheap, innovative technology to be sure. Great Software? Definitely but a lousy company on delivery.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  23. Re:Mod parent up by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Funny

    If I posted NGA would you automatically know what I was talking about?

    That's completely offensive. I'll have you know my ex girlfriend is black. CRKR.

    ...but, to answer your question: no.

  24. Re:F the EC by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, standing up to badly behaved American companies.

    Try some research before you post nationalistic crap like that. The EC has fined european companies in the billions range for violations of anti-corruption laws, does the same anti-trust checks on european companies and so on.

    Wake up. 50 years ago, the US had the moral high ground on the rest of the world, but you can't go downhill forever without losing it.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  25. Re:Okay... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2, Informative

    As an Australian and on Rememberance Day, I withhold my sense of humour for a moment and object to your use of the term "Digger". We use it as a term of endearment toward people who go out and get their asses shot off on our behalf, and something we respect them highly for. Don't dilute that coin please.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  26. Re:Why let the EU interfere? by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although these companies are primarily based in the US they have some fairly substantial operations in the EU. I don't imagine that they like the idea of moving those, especially if it involves moving them further from a market that they're trying to sell into. Europe probably would miss Oracle and MySQL but Oracle-Sun would probably miss having a presence in an enormous market and would not welcome the costs of moving parts of their operation into the US or to other places outside the EU.

    When they entered the European markets, these companies did so on the understanding that they'd be required to obey European laws. Therefore I don't believe there's anything to criticize that they are now being held up by these laws - they put themselves in the reach of EU jurisdiction in order to profit in the large markets of the Europe Union, now they're living with the consequences. Objecting to the EU's actual reasoning is fair enough but it's not really reasonable to expect that because a company is based in the US it will not encounter different legal situations when it runs significant businesses in other parts of the world.

  27. Re:Okay... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're right. If we go by body mass, one European (~70 kg) makes about 1/4th of an American. But hey, by that same metric, the USA have about the same population as China!

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  28. Re:Okay... by JumpDrive · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, but then it looks like an Alien humping a cow.

  29. Re:F the EC by laddiebuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Moral high ground? Would that be after stooping to the level of the USSR in playing third-world countries like pawns -- the CIA coups in Iran or Guatemala in the early fifties? After backstabbing her allies at Suez a few years later? Or after encouraging the Hungarians that same year? Or were you thinking back to the World War -- and the wonderful economic timing of joining it two years late, when her last ally was finally bankrupt?

    Come to think of it, I can't remember any instance where the US had the moral high ground since its revolution. Sure, if you compare it to the Soviet Union, it had the moral high ground, but that's not much of a comparison, is it?

    This isn't a dig at the US, it's a decent country. But far too much of its propaganda is still believed, probably because it's top nation.

  30. US v. EU by jhylkema · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The EU and the EC are getting a rep for disagreeing with US counterparts.

    They're getting a rep for doing their jobs, in other words. The same cannot be said for their U.S. counterparts who have assumed the role of the fox guarding the hen house.

  31. Re:Mod parent up by turbidostato · · Score: 2, Informative

    "...not specifically American nerds."

    Are you sure?
    http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed850
    "Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans"

  32. Re:F the EC by celle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Sure, if you compare it to the Soviet Union, it had the moral high ground, but that's not much of a comparison, is it?"

        Versus the history of europe over the last hundred years the US definitely does have the high moral ground. The Soviets make a good showing as well. Let's see in europe, military uprisings/WWI, hitler/jews/WWII, political massacres by eastern european dictators, the genocides in the balkans, armenian genocides in turkey, fighting in northern Ireland, and europe's obvious indifference to corruption and suffering in its own back yard until the US steps or gets sucked in to stop it. There's more and this is just the last 100 years. Europe is nowhere near a bunch of angels, changing your name to the EU doesn't erase the past or change current attitudes or behavior.
        How many people have died in the political games/wars/incursions in europe or because of europe? The US and even the Soviet Union would have had a lot of catching up to do. When it comes to morals the EU is in no position to say anything.