[Info-vax] Trial Phase 2 (was Re: HP wins Oracle Itanium case)

[David Froble]

Keith Parris wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 3:52 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>> "HP wins judgement in Itanium suit against Oracle
> 
> Oracle has filed its objection to the court's Proposed Statement of 
> Decision: 
> http://www.scefiling.org/filingdocs/14198/53924/endorse_86221_OraclexsxObjectionsxtoxCourtxsxProposedxSOD.pdf 
> 
> 
> Most of it seems to whining that things didn't go its way, and that the 
> court took HP's side. For example:

Does that mean HP's bribe was larger than Oracle's ??

> "Like HP, Oracle submitted 30 pages of proposed findings. ... The Court 
> chose to work off of HP’s proposed findings instead, adopted the vast 
> majority of them verbatim, and supplemented that with additional 
> content. By and large, the Court did not specifically address Oracle’s 
> proposed findings. A few appear in the Proposed Statement of Decision, 
> but for the most part the Court simply edited and added to HP’s proposed 
> findings and therefore did not say anything about Oracle’s."
> 
> "The Court took the form of proposed statement of decision that HP 
> drafted for its declaratory relief cause of action under the Hurd 
> agreement and modified it, explicitly applying it to “both the breach of 
> contract and promissory estoppel causes of action brought by HP.”"
> 
> Some of it is threats:
> 
> "Oracle will appeal this decision. Ultimately this case will be decided 
> in the appellate courts."

Of course.  That's the system.  More money for the lawyers, and time for 
another round of bribes.

> And there seems to be some fear that if they don't immediately 
> recommence porting for Itanium they may be in contempt of court:

Unless they get a stay, that should be correct.

> "The Court’s holding ... that Oracle is obligated “to continue to offer 
> its product suite on HP’s Itanium-based server platforms” and “Oracle is 
> required to port its products to HP’s Itanium-based servers” — appears 
> to be an operative mandate."
> 
> "If consistency with the partnership leaves Oracle without any 
> discretion to cease porting, then the instant any Itanium port of any 
> part of the “product suite” is not delivered (an inevitability unless 
> Oracle recommences porting), Oracle will be in breach."
> 
> "Oracle believes that the Court should clarify now whether it intends 
> the PSOD to order Oracle to recommence porting to Itanium."
> 
> But Oracle says they're willing to do that, apparently in hopes of 
> escaping a Phase 2 of this trial (which awards damages). But if Phase 2 
> proceeds, they threaten that in that case they _won't_ recommence porting:
> 
> "In other words, Oracle will recommence porting its software to Itanium 
> immediately on the terms the Court orders. This would give HP the relief 
> it has always sought in this case while ensuring Oracle an immediate 
> appeal." ... "Otherwise the parties and the Court will expend many 
> months and resources on a Phase 2 trial that may not be needed, and HP 
> will be months from receiving a porting order from this Court (which 
> will then be stayed pending appeal)."
> 
> And I found this piece very interesting:
> 
> "Oracle also objects to and requests clarification and findings 
> regarding the Court’s reference to “HP’s Itanium-based server platforms” 
> in paragraphs 2-5, in that it is unclear what the Court means by that 
> term, specifically as to the operating systems covered."
> 
> As Oracle doesn't run on NonStop, and Windows and Red Hat Linux already 
> dropped support, OpenVMS (and maybe SuSE Linux, which still supports 
> Itanium, but of course isn't an HP operating system) seem to be the only 
> other Itanium operating systems conceivably involved (other than HP-UX, 
> of course). Is Oracle here trying to weasel out of any obligation to 
> continue porting Oracle Server (and developing Oracle Rdb) for OpenVMS 
> on Itanium?

Maybe they want to support VMS but not HP-UX ??  Would be amusing.  Then 
they will point to RDB, and avoid any Oracle Classic.

> It's also apparently trying to weasel out of commitments if it can, 
> based on wording and semantics:
> "Oracle also objects to and requests clarification and findings 
> regarding the Court’s references to “continue to offer” and “port,” in 
> that it is unclear whether the Court is reading “continue to offer” to 
> mean “continue to develop” or “continue to port”."
> 
> So Oracle would like to continue to sell ("offer"), but not do any 
> development on, or porting to, Itanium. But isn't that just what they're 
> already trying to do? Nice try. :-)

I've got to believe they could have just done this, without saying a 
word.  That leads to the question, "just why did they go so public?". 
Perhaps the intent was to harm HP.

> The Pre-Trial Conference for Phase 2 of the trial is scheduled for 
> August 29, 2012, with the Joint Pre-Trial Conference Statement to be 
> filed by August 24.