Sun Microsystems To Cut 3,000 Jobs As Oracle Deal Drags On 251
afgun writes with news that Sun will be shedding 3,000 jobs, roughly 10% of their workforce, as they continue to lose money while waiting for EC regulators to approve their acquisition by Oracle. "Oracle Chief Executive Officer Larry Ellison said Sept. 22 that Sun is losing about $100 million a month as the transaction is delayed by the EU probe." James Staten, an analyst with Forrester, said, "The longer a cloud of uncertainty hangs over Sun, that drives customers into delays of purchases or into the hands of competitors. This is a very trying time for Sun and Oracle as they wait for an answer." A spokesman for EU Competition Comissioner Neelie Kroes said today that she "expressed her disappointment that Oracle failed to produce, despite repeated requests, either hard evidence that there were no competition problems or a proposal for a remedy to the competition concerns identified by the commission," and that "a rapid solution lies in Oracle's hands."
Cloud Computing is Evil!!1! (Score:4, Funny)
"The longer a cloud of uncertainty hangs over Sun, that drives customers into delays of purchases or into the hands of competitors...
I just don't see why Sun needed to use the cloud for uncertainty. Companies have been doing this for years without the cloud. Now they can't control it!
Re: (Score:2)
and being eclipsed!
Re: (Score:2)
If both Sun and Oracle are US companies....why do they have to get permission from the EU for this purchase? I can see them having to answer to the US, but, why do they have to answer to any other company? I've certainly not heard of foreign companies having to get permission to merge from the US....?
Re: (Score:2)
When you start a new company overseas, you usually don't just buy a building and send people over there.
Sun Microsystems GmbH and Oracle Ltd (or whatever they are) are european business units owned by Oracle Inc in the US. They're probably the ones who need regulatory approval.
Nancy Kroes? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I hated her on Star Trek:Voyager.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Erm, she is called Neelie Kroes.
Nancy is Neelie's hotter evil twin sister.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Erm, she is called Neelie Kroes.
Nancy is Neelie's hotter evil twin sister.
If you work for Opel in Germany (or sit on Magna's board) I don't think you'll be believing it is possible for someone like her to have an evil twin...
FTFY (Score:2)
I must be missing something (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really get this. If you Oracle on Solaris is a good solution for you today, will it become a bad solution if the merger isn't approved?
Also, how do you produce "hard evidence that there were no competition problems"? Tell them you looked really hard but couldn't find any counterevidence?
I'm ambivalent about Sun and am definitely not an Oracle fan, but I don't really see the problems here.
Re:I must be missing something (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, how do you produce "hard evidence that there were no competition problems"?
Point out the existence of Postgres?
Re: (Score:2)
I've been using MySQL for about ten years, mainly because I've become pretty durned familiar with it. However, all these antics and all this uncertainty is making PostgreSQL look considerably more attractive. To be honest with you I'm feeling that way about a lot of Sun's products. The uncertainty is making me uneasy about Java as well, and I sure the hell wouldn't do anything in OpenSolaris right now.
Re: (Score:2)
and I sure the hell wouldn't do anything in OpenSolaris right now
Why the hell not?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because, while OpenSolaris is pretty cool, support for OpenSolaris could easily disappear tomorrow. Yes, OpenSolaris might still exist, but future development on OpenSolaris is basically 100% dependent on Sun. If Oracle decides that it does not want to fund OpenSolaris development any more (or it simply decides to reduce funding for development) then OpenSolaris will be in serious trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
I moved to PostgreSQL long ago. For me it was subqueries and transactions that made PostgreSQL look very attractive.
I would have no problem in doing stuff on OpenSolaris. Moving the kind of stuff I do to BSD, AIX, HP/UX, OSX or Linux is more or less trivial.
Re:I must be missing something (Score:5, Interesting)
Even as a Postgres user I'm willing to admit that MySQL is used in a much larger number of databases.
So the issue isn't that there is an alternative, it's that a significant number of people are using MySQL in production environments.
And believe it or not the EU considers that there is a serious amount of momentum for the end user if they are already using MySQL.
The concern they have is that MySQL would be abandoned by Oracle. Leaving a large number of people with concerns about what they are going to do for support.
If Oracle would spin MySQL or seperate MySQL from the deal, this thing would be over in a couple of days.
Currently what Oracle and Sun are saying is, if you don't let us have MySQL we are going to start laying people off and it's your fault.
. So now they are playing a game of chicken.
The only problem is that the EU usually takes into account these type of tactics and realizes that no matter what happens a large number of people are going to lose their jobs.
Here in the US congress would be crying about the job loss we were creating by not letting the deal go through.
I'm becoming a little more impressed with the EU's dealing with these types of issues. They seem to be a lot more business savvy compared to the counterparts in the US.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If, by not merging, Sun goes out of business, then no more support for your newly purchased equipment. Of course, I don't have any idea how likely Sun is to go under, but that's what they're trying to allude to in pressuring the EU. As for counter evidence, just point to all the competing products/companies that will still exist in their markets after the merger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because Oracle doesn't already offer a competing product in the same market space as Java, raising concerns about anticompetitive squashing or stifling of Java.
OTOH, MySQL runs the perceived risk of being the fifth wheel in the "Oracle RDBMS über alles" mindset that much of the community fears (wrongly or rightly).
On a slightly offtopic note: I wonder if this comment will preserve the umlaut-u I put into the quoted phrase there.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Oracle doesn't already offer a competing product in the same market space as Java, raising concerns about anticompetitive squashing or stifling of Java.
Really? What about jRockit from the BEA purchase they made?
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/jrockit/index.html [oracle.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Because Oracle doesn't have a competing VM, but does have a competing DB? (And even has a free DB that was a direct response to MySQL?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is complete shit and they are certainly _not_ the two biggest database solutions out there.
Furthermore, there is a low barrier to entry and a shitload of alternatives: Databases. [wikipedia.org]
This is just the EU bureaucrats exerting power for their own benefit. If those fuckers want a trade war, I say we give it to them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that the longer the decision is delayed the longer Sun's EU employees get to keep their jobs doing .... whatever it is they do.
I dunno what Sun people do anymore. Every time I've called Sun for the last 5 or 6 years they seemed only vaguely interested in selling me a computer.
Re:I must be missing something (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, that's the first time I've seen Oracle used as a verb. You've been Oracled on must mean something like Larry has peed on your rose bushes (egads, not again). Solaris probably will get Oracled on.
Re:I must be missing something (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
For the econo
Productive people leave a big footprint (Score:2)
"For the economy to recover, those people will end up having to find something else (productive) to do."
It finally dawned on me why some conservatives refer to the rich as "the most productive individuals". Being productive is all about consuming resources and expending energy and who does that better than the wealthy?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the problem is that the rank-and-file know exactly which half could be cut. Managers either don't know or refuse to cut employees they know to be loyal to them.
That's easy (Score:3, Funny)
"Yes, the problem is that the rank-and-file know exactly which half could be cut."
Sure, the other half.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, how do you produce "hard evidence that there were no competition problems"? Tell them you looked really hard but couldn't find any counterevidence?
Sir-
Cite existing studies, or alternatively commission a study by a market research / auditor like PWC or Deloitte of:
1. the market effects of the merger upon the same types of products and services that are offered by both companies, which study ought to (if the merger is to be approved) indicate that there is a limited impact upon the competition in all of the significant types of products and services where both these companies presently provide products and services in the marketplace; and
2. the ability for the merged company to exclude the products and services of other companies now that the two have merged, and the likelihood and market effects of that possibility of exclusion; which study ought to (again, if the merger is to be approved) indicate that there is a limited likelihood or impact upon competition because the company can now exclude other companies from its decisions.
The prior is to recognize and prevent the creation of horizontals (i.e. the single provider of a product or service, e.g. Microsoft-OS's) and verticals (i.e. the single provider of an entire product from start to finish, e.g. Monsanto-food).
The EU commission wants to know, I suspect, whether this merger will make Oracle the only provider of certain products and services (e.g. databases), or alternatively whether it will make Oracle a single solution provider at the expense of others (i.e. bundling the Oracle database with Solaris operating systems with Sparc servers so as to exclude PostgreSQL, Linux and Intel). In the prior case there are obviously other databases, PostgreSQL, etc., and in the latter there are clear reasons why the merger wouldn't hurt the OS or server market (namely there is vibrant competition in both with Solaris). That's just my opinion, though - I don't know the details.
Aren't these both US companies? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Aren't these both US companies? (Score:5, Informative)
They both operate in Europe as well. When you're a large, multinational corporation you generally have to accept regulatory practices of each nation you wish to operate in.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Sun and Oracle want to be able to sell their products in Europe. If they decided not to then, by all means, they can ignore the EU's authority.
Re:Aren't these both US companies? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because they aren't "american companies". They are multinational corporations. They have offices and subsidaries in Europe and probably a dozen other places all around the world. Their HQs happen to be in the USA, but aside from that they're only "american" when appealing to patriotism serves their bottom line.
No, they're not, they're global (Score:2, Insightful)
You are a very, very stupid person. Do you even know how much of Oracle and Sun's revenue comes from Europe? Or how many thousands of people work for them in Europe?!
They're VERY happy to make a lot of their money in Europe, and if they want to continue they have to follow local laws!
The same applies to large European companies doing business in the US! Recent examples include the Nokia's purchase of Nortel.
MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taking (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place. IIRC, most of the original people behind it have left and started their own companies around mysql open source forks, or gone to other projects. The supposed "ownership" Oracle will have seems mostly worthless. If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.
That said, I have little sympathy for the EU here. They're taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Oracle/Sun's coffers due to the delays, then turning around and saying that the burden is on Oracle to prove it's innocence. If the EU is going to be so disruptive to businesses, they need to act quickly and with their own resources. I'm no fan of corporations, but the EU looks to be clearly in the wrong here.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely this was rather predictable. Oracle need better lawyers who would have advised them. Where was their planning?
Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, nonsense. An organization the size of Oracle had to know that a merger like this would attract regulatory scrutiny. Every single news story about this has brought up that regulators would be looking at this one carefully. This shouldn't be a surprise that it's getting attention. Also, anyone who's paid attention to the Microsoft battles with the EU should have been aware they the EU competition regulators are much stricter than the US regulators.
Basically, for Oracle to pull this deal, they had a responsibility (I'll even go so far as to call it a fiduciary duty, since it's apparently costing them lots of money) to be ready for this scrutiny. This story seems to indicate that they weren't.
wait a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki (Score:5, Funny)
But they aren't Rational. Rational is owned by IBM. [ibm.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People use MySQL because its free, simple and easy. If they wanted an expensive Oracle DB they would be using..... Oracle.
There is a near certainty Oracle is looking to mess with MySQL one way another or they would have spun it out of this deal already and it kinds of looks like the EU knows it. Oracle can't exactly kill MySQL since its open source but they sure can mess with it in to the future and force a migration to a fork and a new brand name which is usually messy. I doubt Ellison has any love loss
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.
The fact that Oracle didn't do exactly that is really the strongest indication that Oracle really did have some anticompetitive intent with the acquisition. I can't really see what (nefarious schemes to kill it off would most likely be unsuccessful, as would locking it in, etc), but then I could never really see what Oracle could get out of the acquisition.
They're taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Oracle/Sun's coffers
Would Sun magically stop bleeding if the merger completed? Maybe if Ellison went 'k thanks oh btw you're all fired' on the first day. But really, in the short term I don't see the schedule of the merger really affecting the scale of the losses. The uncertainty of Suns customers wouldn't be ameliorated by having Oracle finalized as an owner, so pretty much the only thing that'd change would perhaps be the interest rate on some loans.
It simply isn't the EU that's causing the losses and they'd be there either way.
Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly right. Chances are Ellison is loving this since he can blame the carnage on the EU, he gets SUN to take all the charges for the layoffs, and he gets rid of people he would have fired the day after the merger closed anyway. Only interesting question is if Schwartz and SUN decided who got canned or if Ellison and Oracle are deciding. Chance are SUN at least consulted with Oracle on who got the ax.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place"
That's it. Fire the 3000 employees closer to whoever made this stupid decision.
Their marketing team should go too.
Regulatory agencies run amok (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it do the public any good, if the regulatory agency kills the competitor being acquired, by delaying a decision?
By the time the acquisition is approved or rejected, Sun will be basically dead, and barely have any role as the competitor, anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Sun will be basically dead, and barely have any role as the competitor, anyways.
So, if the situation is unchanged, whats the rush?
Re:Regulatory agencies run amok (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it do the public any good, if the regulatory agency kills the competitor being acquired, by delaying a decision?
By the time the acquisition is approved or rejected, Sun will be basically dead, and barely have any role as the competitor, anyways.
Obviously if you read TFS Oracle is responsible for not providing substantial data. If this was truly a harmless move they would have stopped this fictional $100 million/month charade and sold off MySQL already. But they don't want to. Why? Because they want to own 100% of the OSS database enterprise market. So they get Sun to use the opportunity to fire 3000 people instead and say: "LOOK WHAT YOU MADE US DO!" With or without MySQL the merger will take place, they will fight until the bitter end, but either way those 3000 layoffs were probably planned months ago. You don't suddenly fire 3000 people, and anybody who think this is anything but months of planning and execution is naive and has never worked within management.
Re: (Score:2)
"OSS database enterprise market"? Are you kidding? So now we can just make obscure definitions for markets and then cry that they're being stomped by some big mean corporation?
I hereby protest the acquisition of LeisureCorp by DynaCorp. Dynacorp will be the only producer of green lawn furniture produced in a building that is energy efficient and which produces green lawn furniture with a nylon content of less than 25% and which offers MegaHealthCare insurance to its employees. This could be a market tra
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Namedropping will not make them corporate standard. The companies that I've worked within and their affiliates almost always use MySQL or Oracle, except a few Access and SQLite exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it does good.
The entire philosophical underpinning of free market theory rests on certain assumptions. One of them being that neither a single supplier nor a single consumer has a commanding influence over the market. As soon as that happens, everything you learned about price finding, supply-and-demand, market equilibrium and all the other "magic" breaks down.
These are the people who guard the free market. They may not be perfect, but I'm damn happy we have them. Economics 101 tells you what happens i
Re: (Score:2)
Did the US regulators have the same concerns? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did the US regulators have similar concerns? If not, why not? If they're genuine concerns - they sound like it - why is it just the EU that's following them up?
There generally seems to be a certain amount of frustration that the EU is holding up companies of US origin, although actually they have significant financial impact (and offices and presumably regional headquarters and subsidiary companies) in Europe too. Presumably Oracle and Sun *themselves* could have predicted these hurdles if they'd done their homework - is it really that outlandish to expect that merging two leading (albeit in different markets!) database companies would be a worry for the regulators?
Presumably Oracle and Sun would be welcome to merge if they had terminated their entire presence in Europe - they're not proposing doing that and one assumes it's because Europe is a big enough financial interest for them that they believe it's *worth the wait*. They may not have a choice, in practical terms, but one assumes they have years / decades of making money from their European dealings so it's not like the EU is just a plain dead weight for them.
This is the same EU that is cracking down on anticompetitive behaviour from MS and Intel, which generally seem to be popular moves with folks here. Would the tech industry really be in a better position if they reduced their scrutiny? Or if they applied it only to certain companies.
To me it seems a bit "convenient" that, in an economy where many jobs have to be lost anyhow (and as a merger is occurring, which may also naturally lead to job losses) people are blaming job losses solely on the regulators doing their jobs and not on sharp practice, opportunism or plain lack of co-operation from large multinationals operating in a cutthroat market.
The US regulators had other concerns . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Did the US regulators have similar concerns? If not, why not?
. . . like GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, Savings & Loans . . . etc. All looking for government bailouts.
Oracle's Ellison was willing to bankroll the rescue of Sun with his own money.
With so many other headaches on their plate, the government was probably just happy to see a solution for Sun that didn't require gobs of taxpayer money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did the US regulators have similar concerns? If not, why not? .
Because they have a different philosophy than the EU. The EU has been the leading anti-trust regulator in the world for a long time now simply because they believe it's in societies best interest to force companies to compete whereas the US believes more in the innovative power of unregulated companies and thus have a more laissez-faire attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems more and more that the US has become completely controlled by big business who are in turn owned by the elites (the top 1% who own more than 50% of everything).
(Economic) Freedom isn't Free. So tell me who b
Re:Did the US regulators have the same concerns? (Score:4, Interesting)
Did the US regulators have similar concerns? If not, why not? If they're genuine concerns - they sound like it - why is it just the EU that's following them up?
There generally seems to be a certain amount of frustration that the EU is holding up companies of US origin, although actually they have significant financial impact (and offices and presumably regional headquarters and subsidiary companies) in Europe too. Presumably Oracle and Sun *themselves* could have predicted these hurdles if they'd done their homework - is it really that outlandish to expect that merging two leading (albeit in different markets!) database companies would be a worry for the regulators?
I was wondering this too. What I've seen so far of Neelie Kroes in the last couple of years, she's been very fair, and quick to act if she could. It's only when companies are dragging their feet and fail to reply to the raised concerns that get raised. And she might have given some big fines to US companies, the biggest and most fines have still been applied against EU companies.
And given that Oracle is acquiring MySQL with this merger, I think the EU certainly has a point, the only other sizeable players remaining are PosGreSQL and Microsoft. Basically you end up with a market that looks similar to the OS market with Linux and OSX as competitors to Windows, and for the OS market I think Windows has been ruled a (near) monopoly on both sides of the Atlantic. I think the EU is well within its rights if it wants to prevent the situation that the current OS market is in.
Regulators... (Score:2)
Presumably Oracle and Sun *themselves* could have predicted these hurdles if they'd done their homework - is it really that outlandish to expect that merging two leading (albeit in different markets!) database companies would be a worry for the regulators? ........ Would the tech industry really be in a better position if they reduced their scrutiny? Or if they applied it only to certain companies. ...... To me it seems a bit "convenient" that, in an economy where many jobs have to be lost anyhow (and as a merger is occurring, which may also naturally lead to job losses) people are blaming job losses solely on the regulators doing their jobs and not on sharp practice, opportunism or plain lack of co-operation from large multinationals operating in a cutthroat market.
Yup... it brings back memories from the recent past when all kinds of people were whining, pissing and moaning about how evil regulators stood in the way of Wall Street in it's quest to make the world a better and wealthier place with innovative financial products and free market fundamentalist dogma. In the middle of this stirring chorus of people chanting "deregulation" in perfect harmony.... BAM.... alluvasudden we had our selves a global banking crash. Now those same people are asking: "where were the r
you need to ask? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ellison (Score:5, Interesting)
Larry doesn't mind; the EU delay gives him a scapegoat for the layoffs.
Those of you fixated on MySQL: Sun sells hardware, software licenses and contract support to enterprises that use SQL Server, DB2, SAP and other direct competitors of Oracle, meaning the some DB2 users (for instance) will find themselves relying on Oracle for support of certified DB2 platforms... MySQL may be the least of whatever "competition problems" the EU has in mind
Re:Ellison (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, high end Oracle databases typically run on either Linux for distributed (cheap) clusters, or HP-UX/Solaris on high end hardware for big monolithic installations. Oracle already has their own Linux distribution that they push pretty hard, and once they buy Sun they'll own a major commercial UNIX player, too.
Oracle has traditionally been buddy buddy with HP, but since the announcement of the Sun deal, they've started giving them the cold shoulder. While I doubt they'd drop HP-UX support entirely (there would be outrage), I can certainly see them doing things to try to push people onto Solaris or Oracle Linux, on Sun hardware, and wrapping everything up as a neat package deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good news for Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because when a company is tight on cash and needs to shed some people, they always dump the "top engineers" first.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Top engineers left for greener pastures years ago. Few people with highly valued talent are going to stay aboard a sinking ship.
Re:Good news for Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The top engineers don't get dumped, they leave. If you have the choice between staying with a sinking ship, with uncertain job prospects after a merger, and say going to work for Apple, which has more job security and stability at the moment, what would you do?
Re:Good news for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine you are a top engineer working for sun. I know it's a stretch, but try and hang with me here. Now imagine that you knew Sun was going to cut 3,000 jobs. You probably would, at the very least, spruce up your resume. You also might start actively looking for a new job. At the very least you'll probably actually answer the phone when the headhunter that has been bothering you calls again.
The problem with top engineers is that they generally have the skills and contacts that it takes to move fairly easily to a new job, but "fairly easily" still takes a bit of doing, and the more time you have beforehand, the better. So when things begin to get dicey at a company the best employees are often the very first to jump ship. After all, why go through the uncertainty of a round of layoffs if you don't have to?
In fact, right now only the very worst of Sun's employees are not actively looking for a new job. Only the folks that know that there is no way that they'll land a comparable job somewhere else are dedicating their resources to hanging onto what is clearly a sinking ship. Everyone else is moving towards the lifeboats.
Re:Good news for Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Afaict what tends to happen is that they start with early retirements, that means the oldest slice of your workforce, possiblly the most experianced too. OTOH they were people you would probablly lose in a few years time anyway due to normal retirement.
Then they tend to go for "voluntary redundancies", basically anyone who leaves gets paid extra for doing so. This means all your most employable people go find another job. Even if there is no payment for leaving people who can leave are likely to do so because they can get a more secure job elsewhere.
Only if both of those fail to cull enough people do they go for compulsary redundancies.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Apple will be able to cherry pick the top engineers from Sun and continue its relentless assault on every other version of Unix (and suck unix-alikes like Linux). GO APPLE!
Go zealots! Save that economy!
Apple can't take server share (Score:4, Informative)
While OS X Server is real underrated state of art UNIX which can do amazing things, Apple isn't and can't be a "server" competitor unless they allow OS X Server to run on "generic" x86.
While not widely known, OS X server can be used as a client, you can even play all the games on it even with better performance. So, they can't make "blade only" Apple OS X server. It would mean the end of "OS X working only on Apple hardware". I mean it is not AIX.
Forget everything, Apple can't compete in "support" department for servers. There is Big Blue there, Dell there, HP there and of course, Sun with decades old agreements and happy customers who expects same kind of service.
Of course, if you consider the things you can do with distributed computing (Xserve), spotlight (server version), it is sad but industry hates brand hardware without any competition. Java's (especially J2EE) success and mainframes coming back to life is also related to that trend, people choose Java because it will work anywhere, any CPU and even any OS with minor modifications.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The main problem with OS X as a server is that the multi-thread libraries create a huge amount of overhead for applications like SQL databases to perform well. I saw some MySQL benchmarks and OS X server was absolutely atrocious performance wise compared to Linux on similar hardware.
OS X makes a great desktop UNIX, but it's
Re:Since it is EU that is dragging (Score:4, Insightful)
Why?
They aren't elected by locals losing their jobs, those probing the companies are appointed, and thus have no interest in rushing the decision.
Also a merger between the two companies will likely result in even more job cuts.
Re:Since it is EU that is dragging (Score:5, Insightful)
To prevent a large monopoly from forming around a certain product, service or market? Seems like a good enough reason to me. Monopolies only benefit themselves (the companies that create them) and not consumers. In the EU, at least the government still cares about protecting the consumer. In the US, the companies run the show and the politicians.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
To prevent a large monopoly from forming around a certain product, service or market? Seems like a good enough reason to me. Monopolies only benefit themselves (the companies that create them) and not consumers. In the EU, at least the government still cares about protecting the consumer. In the US, the companies run the show and the politicians.
The unfortunate situation in this case is that the probe is using a "guilty until proven innocent" approach of things, thus causing 3K people losing their jobs. Where is the actual, sufficiently reasonable evidence that this merger will result in a monopoly? What other industries will get affected by it? IBM? MS? Large DB software writers? Server manufacturers? MySQL? Who are these potential consumers that must be protected by this evil merge of doom?
This shredding of 3K employees, probably translate to 3
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the EU that is causing these job losses, it's Sun's piss-poor management that caused them to need to be bought out in the first place.
This goes up to fundamental problems in their business model, I think.
Over the last decade or so I've noticed a common thread in the IT business - when businesses suddenly start saying they're re-orienting themselves around a "services" model, it draws only one picture:
(1) They no longer have a viable product to sell,
(2) They haven't invested sufficiently in R&D over the long haul to keep themselves technically relevant, and
(3) They've bought into a race-to-the-bottom, price-driven market, and hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Had Sun/Oracle filed on correct time, they would probably have received the green light months ago. Instead they waited until the merger was approved in America to file in Europe, and it seems that the commission didn't like the appearance of being strong-armed into agreeing to the merger.
It gets even funnier when you consider that the Commission and the other European institutions are very large Sun/Oracle customers... both hard/soft and service wise.
Re:Since it is EU that is dragging (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Monopolies only benefit themselves (the companies that create them) and not consumers"
Well, we can debate if the fruit of monopolies has benefited consumers:
Xerox:
Ethernet
Press->Interpress leading to Postcript at Adobe
Laser Printers
Graphical User Interface
AT&T:
C and C++
UNIX
Laser
Transistor
IBM:
FORTRAN
DES
Fractal Science
Magnetic Disks
DRAM
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also a merger between the two companies will likely result in even more job cuts.
Sun has no way of surviving on its own at this point. So Sun is either acquired, or everyone at Sun loses their jobs, ala SGI. By the time this regulatory investigation completes there will be few left to cut.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Since it is EU that is dragging (Score:5, Insightful)
Read TFA more carefully! What Sun ACTUALLY has said is that the cuts are already part of a 1 year plan. Their complaint is that by holding up the deal, the EU is delaying FURTHER CUTS that they can't make until they are sure there will be Oracle personnel to fill those roles.
That is, they really wish the EU would hurry up and OK the deal so they can fire more people faster.
Other than that, Sun's problems are related to the delays in the deal only by coincidence.
The EU has listed specific concerns and is perfectly happy to move the process forward as soon as Oracle addresses them. It has not done so. Yesterday, right here on /. we read one suggestion (spin off MySQL) that would certainly take care of it.
As for U.S. regulators, it's no surprise they've already OKed it. They'll crack the sound barrier getting the rubber stamp out if your market cap is big enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck EU.
Dragging the deal because of OSS product.
Stupid.
Haha, yeah! Fuck EU! Fuck America! Fuck the world! Let's be a bunch of angry teenagers and punch walls! I mean who in their right mind would cast doubt on the merger of the companies owning the two, by far, largest commercial OSS database products! And there is no chance in hell Sun/Oracle is using this as an excuse to lay off some unprofitable workforce! Fuck hormonal inbalance and puberty!
Kids...
Re:EU is to blame (Score:4, Insightful)
And there is no chance in hell Sun/Oracle is using this as an excuse to lay off some unprofitable workforce!
I think there's very little chance of that. Everyone knows massive layoffs are an inevitable consequence of most large-scale mergers, so no one is going to hammer Oracle too hard if they lay some people off when the merger is complete. Given that, they have little to gain by forcing Sun to lay people off right now. Also, there's no doubt that other companies, especially hardware manufacturers, are doing everything they can to exploit the uncertainty and poach Sun's customers. IBM and HP have both admitted as much. So, while the $100 million a month figure may or may not be exaggerated, Sun is definitely losing customers, and therefore revenue, at a very rapid pace these days because of this delay.
Also, until the Change in Control takes place, the companies are still required to operate as two separate entities. If it was discovered Oracle was exerting enough control over Sun to order them to shed employees, Oracle would be in a heap of trouble with regulators on both sides of the pond.
Re: (Score:2)
And there is no chance in hell Sun/Oracle is using this as an excuse to lay off some unprofitable workforce!
I think there's very little chance of that. Everyone knows massive layoffs are an inevitable consequence of most large-scale mergers, so no one is going to hammer Oracle too hard if they lay some people off when the merger is complete. Given that, they have little to gain by forcing Sun to lay people off right now. Also, there's no doubt that other companies, especially hardware manufacturers, are doing everything they can to exploit the uncertainty and poach Sun's customers. IBM and HP have both admitted as much. So, while the $100 million a month figure may or may not be exaggerated, Sun is definitely losing customers, and therefore revenue, at a very rapid pace these days because of this delay.
Also, until the Change in Control takes place, the companies are still required to operate as two separate entities. If it was discovered Oracle was exerting enough control over Sun to order them to shed employees, Oracle would be in a heap of trouble with regulators on both sides of the pond.
They are losing money by choice. Oracle is obviously not too keen to provide substantial data regarding the antitrust claims, and meanwhile Sun could have sold off MySQL months ago. Whatever seven years of famine will follow this merger will be caused by none other than Oracle and Sun themselves and the power to end this charade is solely in their hands. Don't listen to the media bullshit, these are proper businessmen we're talking about, they knew the consequences before they played their hand. You don't g
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the law in the EU, but in the U.S. supposedly all corporate charters are contingent on the corporation's existence being in the public interest. The government doesn't even seem to pay lip service to that here, but it is the law. Perhaps the law is the same in the EU but someone is actually upholding it?
EU System(s) of Law (Score:4, Insightful)
The US is a Common Law country, for the most part, and almost all European countries use Civil Law/Roman Law [with the exception of England, Wales, Ireland and Northern Ireland, but not Scotland]. The systems are very different in all aspects. From the power of judges to the nature of precedents.
The EU is very active with regards to competition law due to the nature of the institution. The European Union is NOT a federal government, and each member country is still a sovereign country.
The EU and associated institutions legislate, monitor and adjudicate only on matters that are of importance to the whole community. Trade is centrally regulated with the goal of creating one large market for products, services and employees/employers. These are implemented locally within in each national system of law.
However due to the fact that each country may have different or other sets of laws and regulations related to products, take food safety as an example, if these laws stop/hinder products from other EU countries they may be in conflict with central EU treaties. Each country is looking to protect its own industries and jobs while at the same time hoping to win in other markets.
So because each member country is always looking for an advantage, they all work to make sure they are not getting treated unfairly. The result is an army of watchers intent on keeping the playing field *exactly* equal for all regardless of origin.
-----
Branches of American companies in Europe are not treated any different than European companies, the EU and it's member states don't care about the origins of a company - only the jobs, taxes and advances it makes possible in *their* country. That's why it's extra amusing to see angry Americans crying over the treatment so called "American" companies get in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
1) The previous commenter is correct (making slashdot incorrect); the EU Commissioner in question is NEELIE KROES, not "Nancy Kroes".
2) Now why would the EU be interested in slowing down the progress of two AMERICAN companies in joining their efforts, hmmmm???
Re: (Score:2)
As usual "common sense" depends on your point of view. So far the only thing that has happened in the Microsoft case was a big transfer of wealth from MS to the EC and forcing MS to create a new version of Windows nobody buys.
All this because of fear that MS might someday be a big player in the server market.
Re:OssSQL survey says! (Score:4, Funny)
INSERT INTO oracle
(acquisitions)
SELECT employees
FROM competitors c
WHERE c.Company = 'mysql';
ALTER TABLE oracle RENAME COLUMN acquisitions TO interns;
Are you sure you would like to commit the following transactions?
Re: (Score:2)
That, and I'm not sure how you produce hard evidence that something as vague as "competition problems" do not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Jamie Love was told by Oracle that they want to control the copyright to MySQL. My impression was if they don't get it it's a deal-breaker. It might even be the only reason they want it.