mpx (mpx.delete@this.nomail.pl) on August 2, 2012 2:01 am wrote:
> Mark Roulo (nothanks.delete@this.xxx.com) on August 1, 2012 3:08 pm
> wrote:
>
>
> As I understand this there were 3 events:
>
> 1. Mark Hurd soap
> opera. It ended with the agreement which intention was to show that this event
> won't break working together. And both parties kept their obligations - they
> offered Oracle for HP hardware despite of Hurd job status.
>
> 2. Buyout of Sun
> by Oracle. This ended with Oracle assuring HP they are not stopping support of
> the platform because of this.
>
> 3. Oracle learning about Itanium end-of-life.
> According to Oracle it was this event that lead Oracle to stop software
> development on Itanium. This was btw. preceded by Redhat and then Microsoft
> dumping development of future versions for Itanium. Basically Oracle followed a
> market trend.
>
>
> What the judge has done is an unjustified extrapolation of
> agreement form event #1, which was about ending the Hurd dispute, towards
> forcing Oracle to perpetually develop and offer software for Itanium, basically
> denying them freedom of decision in events like #3. This is obviously wrong for
> multiple of reasons. For example consider if there is any indication in the Hurd
> settlement for what period of time partnership lasts? There's no specification
> of any time period. So it cannot be interpreted as obligation for perpetual
> mutual support, 100 years mutual support, 50 years mutual support or whatever
> date you put. The only connection to real-world in this document is Hurd
> dispute, which means cooperation won't end because of it.
>
> Then consider what
> "partnership" means. Is it defined in any written form? If it's not idt doesn't
> mean a judge can define it in any way he feels like. Like making Oracle a
> support slave to HP. Even analogies to the past are wrong interpretation of what
> was happening in the past between these corporations. Then HP was offering
> attractive hardware and Oracle was producing software running on hardware they
> found great. So Oracle committment was not because it was HP or because it was
> PA-Risc, but because these were modern, competitive machines, and also because
> there was no much replacement of them by commoditty hardware, this hardware had
> a future, belonged to a growing platform. This continues today - Oracle
> definitely doesn't produce AIX software because it's from their major competitor
> IBM... Right now HP doesn't offer great or attractive hardware with Itanium, the
> market trend is to leave Itanium, so conditions are opposite than in the past.
>
>
> The most stupid interpretation of this judge is the one about Oracle
> supporting discontinued HP platforms, and the way that he fails to see HP guilt
> there. It should mean HP is guilty of discontinuing viable platforms that Oracle
> was still willing to sell software on. Which means there were never barriers to
> discontinue products in this partnership. Meanwhile IBM still sells mainframes.

Can you point me to a copy of the agreement?

Without the actual words, I don't have much of an opinion.