4 ms·

I think most of the folks overlook one key point - which is the fact that this was free publicity for Oracle. Some would say in a bad way, but that is if you th

by sunjain 14y ago

I think most of the folks overlook one key point - which is the fact that this was free publicity for Oracle. Some would say in a bad way, but that is if you think purely from ability to use/improve open source software(which I agree). However I also feel Oracle was in this not just from that angle but also to show to the world that they are the owners of Java(sort of). When they bought Sun, in essence they did become owners of Java (in a way). But this case has probably done more to broadcast this message that than they could have done using ads. Most of the folks know Oracle as the database company - this case helped broadcast Java linkage of Oracle. As they say, sometimes bad publicity is better than no publicity(you reach audience which you would never reach or need to spend lot of money to get similar results).

debacle 14y ago
That is bad publicity for Java not good publicity for Oracle.
- sunjain 14y ago
  Look at from all those IT mangers/decision makers point of view at big corporations. And there is lot of Java there in those corporations. They previously may not have known that Oracle is linked with Java(in a big way). Now they know.
  - debacle 14y ago
    The kind of IT managers that didn't know that Oracle owned Java are also very likely the kind of IT managers that don't know that Oracle was involved in a lawsuit with Google.
  - aggronn 14y ago
    honestly, as a poorly informed IT manager, i'd be more afraid that java costs money to use, and would end up either wasting a lot of time researching licensing information or straight up trying to move away from java FUD is the only kind of bad publicity.
    - Kadrith 14y ago
      I had a question along those lines come up recently where I work. Someone had heard a little about the lawsuit and asked if there was a concern that Oracle was suing organizations that used Java. The person I spoke with admitted that they knew almost nothing about the issue, just that Google used Java and got sued; and since we use Java in some cases could it mean that we were open to the possibility of being sued by Oracle.
      - ludflu 14y ago
        Although vanishingly unlikely, I don't think this is a bad question. You'd have to be big enough to somehow threaten Oracle. Not many companies fit that bill.

by sunjain 14y ago

debacle 14y ago

That is bad publicity for Java not good publicity for Oracle.

sunjain 14y ago
Look at from all those IT mangers/decision makers point of view at big corporations. And there is lot of Java there in those corporations. They previously may not have known that Oracle is linked with Java(in a big way). Now they know.
- debacle 14y ago
  The kind of IT managers that didn't know that Oracle owned Java are also very likely the kind of IT managers that don't know that Oracle was involved in a lawsuit with Google.
- aggronn 14y ago
  honestly, as a poorly informed IT manager, i'd be more afraid that java costs money to use, and would end up either wasting a lot of time researching licensing information or straight up trying to move away from java FUD is the only kind of bad publicity.
  - Kadrith 14y ago
    I had a question along those lines come up recently where I work. Someone had heard a little about the lawsuit and asked if there was a concern that Oracle was suing organizations that used Java. The person I spoke with admitted that they knew almost nothing about the issue, just that Google used Java and got sued; and since we use Java in some cases could it mean that we were open to the possibility of being sued by Oracle.
    - ludflu 14y ago
      Although vanishingly unlikely, I don't think this is a bad question. You'd have to be big enough to somehow threaten Oracle. Not many companies fit that bill.