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

[VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <a9v1mtFhb0U1 at mid.individual.net>, billg999 at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>In article <k1dit0$r86$1 at usenet01.boi.hp.com>,
>	Keith Parris <keithparris_deletethis at yahoo.com> writes:
>> On 8/22/2012 3:25 PM, Keith Parris wrote:
>>> Oracle has filed its objection to the court's Proposed Statement of
>>> Decision:
>>> http://www.scefiling.org/filingdocs/14198/53924/endorse_86221_OraclexsxObjectionsxtoxCourtxsxProposedxSOD.pdf
>> 
>> And HP has filed its response to Oracle's objections: 
>> http://www.scefiling.org/filingdocs/14200/54286/86808_HPxxxResponsextoxOraclexsxObjectionsx8.pdf
>> 
>>> 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?
>> 
>> HP's legal team had the correct answer to this, IMO:
>> 
>> “Oracle objects that the term “HP’s Itanium-based server platforms” in 
>> the Court’s order is “unclear” because it does not specify the 
>> “operating systems covered.” But Oracle knows precisely which 
>> Itanium-based servers are covered, including the operating systems at 
>> issue, because the Court’s Order specifies that Oracle’s obligations 
>> extend only to those software products that were offered on 
>> Itanium-based servers when the Agreement was signed on September 20, 
>> 2010. Oracle’s software products are designed and offered for specific 
>> hardware platforms (in this case, Itanium) and specific operating 
>> systems (in this case, primarily HP-UX but also OpenVMS and NonStop 
>> depending on the software product). So Oracle knows exactly which 
>> Itanium-based servers are covered by the Court’s Order by referring to 
>> those Itanium-based server platforms to which it was porting on 
>> September 20, 2010.”
>> 
>> So HP's legal team is looking out for OpenVMS (and NonStop) as well as 
>> HP-UX.
>
>An interesting conclusion from people who think Oracle's only interest
>was to harm HP.  The way I see it is that HP might just as well want to
>force Oracle to waste money developing for platforms that will never offer
>a suitable ROI in an attempt to harm them.

???  Considering the usurious licensing fees for Oracle's products, I fail
to see how they can not make a "return on" any "investment."



>Personally, I think Oracle's only real interest is in making money.  I
>see very little liklihood of that supporting Itanium.

Oracle already has/had their products running on Itanium.  Other than a
build for these platforms with the latest changes incorporated, I really
can't see how Oracle would NOT make money.

Considering that there are other fish in the see willing to pony up to
Itanium -- and specifically, VMS -- to provide a database (Mimer comes
to mind here),  Oracle would be handing *their* money to these others.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.