Mark Roulo (nothanks.delete@this.xxx.com) on August 2, 2012 7:36 am wrote:
> 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.

Another question I would have is that even if Oracle is found to have the obligation of supporting HP/Itanium, how would anybody control the quality of the support. This is not like there are existing goods that are shipped and one customer is excluded, rather, the obligation entails that Oracle has to make available code (in the broadest sense) to HP and who knows how many bugs there could be. This by itself could render the entire ruling completely useless. I am not even talking about sabotaging things but there is good software and there is not so good software and who would prove that there is a difference in quality?