Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1.    #1  
    Oracle sticking by claims that Intel plans end of life to itanium.
    Uh-oh, someone is lying, why do I feel like HP is going to get the short end of the stick? Guess we'll find out and the lawyers will get rich.

    HP sues Oracle as tech big shots' animosity grows - Yahoo! News
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by rwhitby View Post
    We always prefer that people donate in response to tangible items they can use today, rather than for intangible promises about the future that may or may not be possible to achieve.
  3. #3  
    Yes, I wish HP would get their webOS patents certified and sue the heck out of RIM and Microsoft. If for no other reason, but to gain financially from their lack of innovation. Sorli...
  4. #4  
    This is just the standard in the tech world. If you're not suing or getting sued, you're not doing it right.
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by rsanchez1 View Post
    This is just the standard in the tech world. If you're not suing or getting sued, you're not doing it right.
    Hmmn, now Oracle is suing Google over Java.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by bluenote View Post
    Hmmn, now Oracle is suing Google over Java.
    I thought Oracle won already.
  7. #7  
    This is different than the intellectual property lawsuits. FTFA:
    The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Santa Clara County Superior Court, accuses Oracle of behaving illegally in deciding that future versions of its database software won't support a particular line of HP servers. Those servers use a chip called Itanium that Oracle insists is being phased out, a claim the chip's maker, Intel Corp., denies.
    I'm not sure I understand what business HP has in telling Oracle what platforms that Oracle will and won't support. IMHO, it shouldn't matter whether Intel is going to discontinue Itanium (or not). If Oracle decides they don't want to support it, then shouldn't that be entirely up to Oracle?

    If HP wins this suit what would keep any computer/OS maker from suing Oracle for not making a product for their particular platform? E.g. does the same logic of this lawsuit enable RIM to sue for not making an Oracle server that runs on a blackberry?

    I guess I don't understand the basis for this lawsuit. Can anyone provide some clarity?
    Twitter: dullgeek
  8. crabbz's Avatar
    78 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
    This is a contract dispute. HP claims Oracle has broken a contract. I don't know why the article in the original post doesn't mention that, seems like a rather important point.

    HP Sues ‘Bitter Antagonist’ Oracle Over Broken Contract Claims - Businessweek
  9. #9  
    HP has sold hundreds of thousand Itanium servers all over the world, They're fighting this battle not only to protect their own investment, but to protect the investment made by their customers.

    I think a large part of this goes back to the aquisition of EDS by HP. EDS was the largest customer of SUN (aquired by Oracle). EDS also was a large part of SUN's support organization, when a customer called SUN for support, it was actually EDS providing the support for many of the platforms.

    SUN suffered a huge loss of business when EDS/HP stopped promoting SUN hardware.

    Intel and HP co-developed Itanium as the future 64bit architecture. With HP's investment in the original Itanium development as well as the HP-UX product line which runs on Itanium, they see this as an anticompetitive move by Oracle.

    Oracle has nearly a monopoly in the Enterprise Database market. Yes, there are Microsoft, IBM and other products, but there are very few people running MS-SQL server for their most critical business. That's not to say the current Microsoft product is not capable, but many companies and software vendors have a huge investment around Oracle software and it's not that easy to move to a different DB platform.
  10. #10  
    Ok. A lawsuit for breach of contract makes more sense. But a lawsuit by company A to compel company B to produce something (that they're not contractually obligated to produce) is frivolous. Regardless of whether or not company A is protecting its customers or it's interests or not. Outside of a contract, company A does not have any legitimate claim for company B to produce anything.

    If there is such a case, then I'm going to sue someone to produce me some stuff I've been wanting. Like an inexpensive personal jet. And a pony. Can't forget the pony.
    Twitter: dullgeek

Posting Permissions