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

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <503707fc$0$45458$c3e8da3$aae71a0a at news.astraweb.com>,
	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca> writes:
> Keith Parris wrote:
> 
>> Oracle has filed its objection to the court's Proposed Statement of 
>> Decision: 
> 
> Not unexpected. Out of this, they may get a few concessions that may
> help Oracle in the future. (see later)
> 
> At the end of the day, Oracle did sign the agreement on paper. It is
> binding. And as long as there are new IA64 boxes in the pipeline it is
> pretty hard for Oracle to weasel out of that paper contract.
> 
> What Oracle should have added to the contract is an opt-out cluase in
> case market conditions change and BCS sales start to drop sharply or
> something like that. (aka: if the business potential for IA64 based
> sales of Oracle software drop significantly, Oracle obligations should
> be ended.)
> 
>> "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."
> 
> This may be used by Oracle on many fronts. You could show that the
> court/judge did not fully understand the issues by using that term
> instead of specifying operating system AND IA64.
> 
> Oracle may succeed in having that text changed to be specific about
> operating system(s).
> 
> And once HP announces the EOL of those systems, one could argue the
> contract also becomes voided.
> 
> Oracle will want to have better definition of when that commitment can
> or does end.
> 
> 
>> "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”."
> 
> If the court used imprecise wording, then it is normal for Oracle to
> request changes/clarification to be precise in the wording. Oracle needs
> to tell its shareholders how much this folly will cost it, so they need
> to find out about all the dots on the "i"s  so they can properly
> calculate exactly what their obligation is.
> 
> Say HP were to announce end of development for HP-UX, but continued
> sales of HP-UX and IA64 boxes. Would Oracle then have a way out ? That
> is what Oracle will want to have specified by the judge who clerly didn't.

Or, Oracle can price it to reflect the actual cost of maintaining this
port given the expected (or even real) number of sales.

I expect that would bring it to an end fairly quickly.

I really don't understand how a court can order a private company to
loose money.  I don't remember the courts ordering Ford to keep making
Edsels.  And, yes, I know a lot of people who actually like them!!

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>