3 ms·

No, I think you're correct. Oracle on Sun hardware was like peanut butter & jelly for a long time. It would have been very bad for Oracle's business if IBM had

by flomo 14y ago

No, I think you're correct. Oracle on Sun hardware was like peanut butter & jelly for a long time. It would have been very bad for Oracle's business if IBM had purchased Sun and used the hardware as a wedge to sell middleware. So while I'm sure Oracle wanted to monetize Java as much as possible, buying Sun was largely a defensive move.

marshray 14y ago
So then why sue Google for using Java in Android? The staff lawyers were getting bored and Ellison fell for the old "must defend our intellectual property or lose it" routine? Just in the hope of picking up a little short term cash by shaking down the deeper pockets in the Java community at the expense of making .Net look to 3rd parties like a legally safer ecosystem?
- flomo 14y ago
  On one level, the Sun people went to great efforts to prevent 'fragmentation' of the Java platform, and I think they felt honestly wronged by what Google did. Sometimes people sue over the principle, not the law. On another level, it was probably just dumb greed. But I do agree Oracle aggressively wanted to remind the industry they owned it. And that they don't really care if Java is COBOLized. (COBOL is still big business!)
  - exhilaration 14y ago
    I think they felt honestly wronged by what Google did On the contrary, "Jonathan Schwartz, then CEO of Sun Microsystems, praised Google and others for incorporating Java into Android back in 2007" - http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110723095928839 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110723095928839
tytso 14y ago
Actually, I wouldn't have been surprised if IBM (if it had purchased Sun) had dumped Sun's hardware division. It was losing money hand over first, and IBM was doing a pretty good beating Sun with its hardware offerings. Between IBM's x86, Power, and Mainframe hardware product lines, it really wouldn't need sparc. So the only question is how quickly IBM would have been able to transition what was left of Sun's hardware business to IBM's x, p, or z series machines. As a result, that's probably why Oracle was willing to pay more than IBM. Both IBM and Sun wanted to be able to make sure they could continue to use Java --- and preserving the freedom of action against lawsuits was I'm sure high on both company's minds. But Oracle could also find a good use for its hardware division, where IBM probably would have tried to sell it off.
- flomo 14y ago
  Well, platforms like Solaris/Sparc are never just dumped. No matter who ended up with it would be milking it all the way down, making it that much more expensive & obscure every year, until the users finally say uncle. Generally that's when the customer wants a new CRM or something and gets two birds with one stone. That's why it would have been disastrous for Oracle if IBM got them. Everytime a Sun customer ordered a new stick of RAM, the IBM software sales team would have been circling around. (Note: I'm sure there's some niches where Sun hardware is very strong, but those are only going to get narrower over time.)

by flomo 14y ago

marshray 14y ago

So then why sue Google for using Java in Android? The staff lawyers were getting bored and Ellison fell for the old "must defend our intellectual property or lose it" routine? Just in the hope of picking up a little short term cash by shaking down the deeper pockets in the Java community at the expense of making .Net look to 3rd parties like a legally safer ecosystem?

flomo 14y ago
On one level, the Sun people went to great efforts to prevent 'fragmentation' of the Java platform, and I think they felt honestly wronged by what Google did. Sometimes people sue over the principle, not the law. On another level, it was probably just dumb greed. But I do agree Oracle aggressively wanted to remind the industry they owned it. And that they don't really care if Java is COBOLized. (COBOL is still big business!)
- exhilaration 14y ago
  I think they felt honestly wronged by what Google did On the contrary, "Jonathan Schwartz, then CEO of Sun Microsystems, praised Google and others for incorporating Java into Android back in 2007" - http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110723095928839 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110723095928839

tytso 14y ago

Actually, I wouldn't have been surprised if IBM (if it had purchased Sun) had dumped Sun's hardware division. It was losing money hand over first, and IBM was doing a pretty good beating Sun with its hardware offerings. Between IBM's x86, Power, and Mainframe hardware product lines, it really wouldn't need sparc. So the only question is how quickly IBM would have been able to transition what was left of Sun's hardware business to IBM's x, p, or z series machines. As a result, that's probably why Oracle was willing to pay more than IBM. Both IBM and Sun wanted to be able to make sure they could continue to use Java --- and preserving the freedom of action against lawsuits was I'm sure high on both company's minds. But Oracle could also find a good use for its hardware division, where IBM probably would have tried to sell it off.

flomo 14y ago
Well, platforms like Solaris/Sparc are never just dumped. No matter who ended up with it would be milking it all the way down, making it that much more expensive & obscure every year, until the users finally say uncle. Generally that's when the customer wants a new CRM or something and gets two birds with one stone. That's why it would have been disastrous for Oracle if IBM got them. Everytime a Sun customer ordered a new stick of RAM, the IBM software sales team would have been circling around. (Note: I'm sure there's some niches where Sun hardware is very strong, but those are only going to get narrower over time.)