Microsoft to testify at Oracle/Sun European Commission hearing

By | December 9, 2009, 8:39am PST

Summary: The “source” reports are true: Microsoft is going to be participating in this week’s hearing held by the European Commission regarding Oracle’s proposal to take over Sun. Microsoft is in the opposition camp to the proposed merger. But why?

The “source” reports are true: Microsoft is going to be participating in this week’s hearing held by the European Commission regarding Oracle’s proposal to take over Sun.

We “can confirm participation at the hearing and that the company has previously responded to inquiry from the Commission about the deal,” said a corporate spokesperson whom I asked about the reports. Because of the confidential nature of the proceedings, Microsoft officials were unwilling to say more.

The hearing is slated for Thursday and Friday in Brussels. According to a Wall Street Journal report, Microsoft officials will be offering arguments as to why the merger shouldn’t be allowed. (There have been previous reports that Microsoft has voiced concerns about the deal. I guess they’ve done that behind supposedly closed doors. I couldn’t find much of anything attributable to them publicly, beyond CEO Steve Ballmer saying he didn’t see why a software company would want to buy a hardware company.)

U.S. antitrust regulators already have OK’d the Sun/Oracle merger. But the EC has not, seemingly because of fears that Oracle might kill off Sun’s open-source MySQL database. Oracle submitted its written defense of the take over to the EC on December 4, according to the Wall Street Journal. Now the Commision must either clear or block the deal by January 27 (though that deadline may be pushed back yet again, the Journal notes).

Microsoft obviously competes with MySQL and Oracle. But Microsoft also partners with both players, too. So its opposition to the merger shouldn’t be solely based on the fact that it wants to weaken potential rival(s). IBM seemingly is in favor of the Oracle/Sun merger, even though IBM also is in the database market, with IBM officials claiming that IBM never sees MySQL when customers are evaluating DB2.

My biggest question is why is Microsoft trying to throw a monkey wrench into the Oracle/Sun deal — besides the likely reason of payback. Oracle is regularly among the list of companies pushing antitrust regulators here and abroad to sock it to the Redmondians whenever Microsoft is in the antitrust hot seat itself. But is Microsoft’s disdain for the deal also because MySQL is more of a threat to SQL Server (and Microsoft partners that sell it) than Microsoft’s management is willing to publicly acknowledge?

Thoughts?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

21
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Microsoft to testify at Oracle/Sun European Commission hearing
jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812 10th Oct
I sincerely nfl jerseys state you make a number of excellent details and I will submit really one or two suggestions to incorporate in soon.
If you want to know why they are there, maybe its because the EC will solicite opinion from the market, and they were asked.

That, and the knowledge that a boot on the other foot can deliver a swift painful kick the Ellison's soft and danglies.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
why
Mary Jo Foley 9th Dec 2009
Hi. Yes. My question isn't why are the testifying; you are right: they were asked to. But it's more about why are they opposed -- beyond the obvious payback reason. I am looking for input from folks about other reasons MS might have for wanting to see the deal derailed. Thanks. MJ
0 Votes
+ -
Every day the deal is delayed
honeymonster Updated - 9th Dec 2009
is another day where Javas future is in limbo,
where Sun/Oracle bleeds money and where JavaFX
becomes less and less of a potential
competitor.

Microsofts .NET is a formidable competitor.
Todays enterprises more often than not are
dependent on both technologies. But over the
past several years the momentum has gradually
shifted in .NETs favor. Uncertain future for
Java means more solutions will be based on .NET
which means more server licenses and more
potential cloud business.

And MS is in a build-up phase with Silverlight
(despite having hit version 3 and soon version
4). If the uncertain future of Java causes some
(most?) customers to go with Flex/Silverlight,
Microsoft is in a unique position to scoop up
the high-end (enterprise) part of the RIA
market. Enterprise customers still regard Flash
as "flashy" while .NET commands some respect
for productivity, scalability and robustness.

*If* MS is really opposing this deal, I suspect
that at least part of the reason is to keep the
Java (and JavaFX) uncertainty for as long as
possible.
0 Votes
+ -
NT
Actually, if Microsoft testifies against the Oracle/Sun merger, and uses MySQL as the basis of it's objections, it would be proof positive that Oracle buying Sun (and obtaining MySQL in the process) would increase competition.

In other words, it would show that MS is worried that an Oracle controlled MySQL would strengthen MySQL, and be a tougher competitor to SQL Server.

I'm sure the EC bureaucrats couldn't care less - they are clearly serving their own interests, and cow-towing to the former MySQL founders, as well as SAP, and they are also doing some Euro protectionism.

Anyway, I say to MS - go right ahead and testify against the Oracle/Sun deal - you'll only be proving that the acquisition would increase competition, and not be a case of anti-trust.
0 Votes
+ -
Could be a condition of the EU regulators
John Zern Updated - 9th Dec 2009
in reference to MS's dealinss with them (i.e. testify against Sun/Oracle in exchange for leniency in something else), or it could be payback.

From what I read of the EU it sounds as though they're the ones that don't want this, maybe they're "asking" people to back them up.
Anything is possible when the EU commission is involved.
0 Votes
+ -
That makes no sense
wolf_z 9th Dec 2009
"But is Microsoft?s disdain for the deal also because MySQL is more of a threat to SQL Server (and Microsoft partners that sell it) than Microsoft?s management is willing to publicly acknowledge?"

If Oracle is planning to kill MySQL (good luck with killing an open source project happy ) then MS should be *for* the merger, not against, always assuming MySQL is a threat to SQL Server.

Maybe they don't want Oracle to have control of Java? But that doesn't make much sense either, since everybody and their dog has some kind of Java--even MS.

Payback might be a motive, but the EC is going to want reasons for blocking the merger, unless MS is saying MySQL will die if Oracle gets Sun, which of course Oracle probably would try to do (with dubious results, open source is pretty much invulnerable to anything but widespread dis-interest).
0 Votes
+ -
Oracle would be stupid to kill MySQL
txtechdog 10th Dec 2009
Oracle has no reason to kill MySQL and every reason to keep it. Think about it.

1. Oracle makes money from MySQL right now because they own InnoDB, the premier storage backend for MySQL. Why would they kill MySQL when it is making them money.

2. Oracle doesn't compete right now with MS-SQL because MS-SQL doesn't scale to the size that Oracle does. MySQL does compete with MS-SQL. Keeping MySQL alive allows Oracle to compete with MS-SQL in their space. Adding MySQL allows Oracle to compete in more DB space than they do right now (embedded with Berkeley DB and middle to high end with Oracle and low to middle end with MySQL).

I think that having a successful company like Oracle in control of MySQL as opposed to a failing company like Sun is the stuff of Microsoft nightmares. When people think of database vendors, four names come immediately to mind. Oracle and IBM at the high end with Oracle DB and DB2. Microsoft and IBM at the middle with MS-SQL and Informix and Microsoft and Sun at the low end with MS-SQL and MySQL. Of those four, Sun's struggles to keep going have made MySQL a risky venture and Microsoft uses that as a selling point against MySQL. With a strong vendor behind MySQL, that selling point goes away and Microsoft faces much tougher competition.

But MySQL is just a piece of the pie that is Sun.

Oracle is heavily invested in Java, so they don't want a competitor like Microsoft to get control of it, because they fear that Microsoft would kill off Java to advance .NET.

Oracle's On Demand services use tons of storage devices (multiple petabytes of Netapp + others) and servers (most of them from Dell), so owning a hardware company like Sun that makes both of these makes good sense. Why spend money on other vendors when you can keep the money in house?

The two major OSs that Oracle works on are Linux and Solaris. They already can sell people their own version of Linux and owning Sun would let them sell people Solaris as well. Again, less money leaving the company for external vendors.

Buying Sun isn't about killing off anything, but is completely about being able to sell complete, integrated solutions including the hardware, operating system, database, and applications software and controlling all of the technologies required to do that. It is also about competing in more spaces than they do right now.
0 Votes
+ -
Ok this take a nice angle
Quebec-french 9th Dec 2009
SO now MS will go and comment on others deal nice...
how much have you gave EC for that .... are you
afraid that much ....

And idiotic Monkey boy ballmer ( why a software
company wanna buy a hardware company simple fatso
they will offer a complete package )

Its a weird world you see MS who have been
periodically attack by EC is now a
witness/observer/consultant/friend.
Wow interesting, maybe MS should be careful with who
they are friend with .... they could be the next in
court with oracle against them .

I also hope that Ellison see this action as a direct
attack ON Oracle and fight back all gun blazing .....

Nice OS war , Database war .... We are living in
interesting time the showdown is coming and there will
be blood.
how much has the EU given MS for that?

All reports read as though the EU Commission is the one that doesn't want the Oracle/Sun merger to go thru.

I wonder if they gave MS "no choice" but to testify against them?

Maybe the EU told MS to "testify or have us force Opera or Firefox as the default browser to ship with Windows"

Oh, and Ellison won't come out "guns blazing", as I don't think he's really interested in Sun as a money making division
0 Votes
+ -
wow what a grand point of view by you
Quebec-french 9th Dec 2009
What a keen analytic mind, off course Ellison
just paid himself a ego-trip worth 6 billion
buck just to put it under it pillow ...wow

Lets revue the asset of Sun and we could analyze what could be done with it ....

Java ... developer kit for application cross-
platform... but mostly free since gpl in 13 nov
2006 could move many thing toward cross-
platform


GlassFish a opensource by sun and some part of
Oracle, application server gpl ...??

Open solaris ( os hint hint ) with solaris
could provide Oracle with a nice unix OS to
offer a complete package to Oracle Client

Open office well known office suite with star-
office could provide in a complete package to
oracle client ... and at 30$ a licence its a
great alternative ...

NetBeans nice development platform for
application using 8 programing language... nice
to have

Mysql well we all know

VirtualBox ... nice alternative to VMware and
make a nice learning and testing tool ...

Sparc processor ... a nice thing to have

Will pass all teh zfs and hardware and the rest
dtrace ......

So with all that and we only scratch the
surface of what Sun is in reality .....

So MR Zern in all your magnificence and deep analytic mind please explain to us why the
f**k he spend 6 billion dollar on a deal he
does not expect to make money out of it ...

BTW if EC wanna make opera or firefox as
default browser they dont need the compliance
of MS ...They can just impose it ... ( which
would be great btw)


please in lighted us please
0 Votes
+ -
that's outrageous!
Linux Geek 9th Dec 2009
The monopolistic crooks from M$ have instigated EC against Oracle and now are allowed to further their lies and FUD.
0 Votes
+ -
You ass-u-me far too much.
No_Ax_to_Grind 9th Dec 2009
"My biggest question is why is Microsoft trying to throw a monkey wrench into the Oracle/Sun deal ? besides the likely reason of payback."

Why do you ass-u-me they are against the merger or throwing a wrench in the works. FOr all you know MS may well tell the EC they are whack a do and to butt out.
But if you know anything about this author her articles generally come with a lot of assumption - with the desire to give you the impression she is in the "know" when she really doesn't know. When one doesn't have a REAL source, you have to speculate. If she were a currency speculator she would be broke. Also, if your livelihood is based upon kicking the dust up about a company just for kicks, her position makes sense.
0 Votes
+ -
You are wrong
txtechdog 10th Dec 2009
It isn't the author of this article that says MS will oppose the deal. It was the Wall Street Journal. If you read the article again, it clearly states that the sources of the information regarding the MS position on the merger comes from there. To quote:

"According to a Wall Street Journal report, Microsoft officials will be offering arguments as to why the merger shouldn?t be allowed."

So while the WSJ report may be founded on speculation or assumptions, it isn't Mary-Jo doing the speculation, it is the WSJ. Mary-Jo is just asking the question why.
0 Votes
+ -
The whole Oracle/MySQL issue is misunderstood or is been miscontrued by most commentators. MYSQL is a commodity exchange for database software not a product business. The EU anti-trust grounds are not that MySQL provides the strong competition to ORACLE any other proprietary DB - that would be ludicrous. MySQL, as the most successful open-source product in the world, is the first example of a "commodity exchange" in the software supply chain. The proposed acquisition by Oracle of MQSQL, is a bit like ORACLE proposing to buy wall-street, or any large trader buying up the exchange through which they trade. Sun owning MYSQL was fine as its livelihood did not depend on the price of databases, but Oracle owning MYSQL is another matter. The EU is protecting the independence of the MYSQL exchange eco-system, where databases have been reduced to commodity status. The whole issue of "database commoditisation" is at stake here. That's why you can't expect MSOFT, SAP, or IBM to oppose the MySQL takeover and why the EU are being so principled.
0 Votes
+ -
I was going to post something similar
Tom-Tech 10th Dec 2009
I think the outcome of this is that the EU will sanction the merger on the condition that MySQL is spun off as an independant entity.
0 Votes
+ -
Java
zzz1234567890 9th Dec 2009
One likely reason would be Java.

MS provides an entire software stack (DB, middleware, programming languages, ... ).

Oracle would do one better by providing the entire stack. Large enterprise would just choose an Oracle stack (as even hardware is by same vendor).
Also Java with a weaker vendor is more beneficial to MS than with Oracle (which is the 2nd largest software company in the world).

Another reason would be to bleed Oracle. The longer the merger takes, the more headaches to Oracle.
It would certainly appear that there?s more of a threat here than Microsoft has let on. It?ll be interesting to see what Microsoft testifies and how the deal unfolds. But assuming the deal moves forward, do you think Oracle/Sun can overpower Microsoft?
It's because of the Cloud - the real reason Oracle bought Sun is to be able to scale and build a massive infrastructure in the cloud and join their competitors such as Microsoft (and Dell), Google, Salesforce, Amazon in providing the technology of tomorrow. Oracle know that the era of companies procuring, building and maintaining their own servers & software is coming to an end and they need to transition to a fully cloud based service provider.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Microsoft to testify at Oracle/Sun European Commission hearing
jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812 10th Oct
I sincerely nfl jerseys state you make a number of excellent details and I will submit really one or two suggestions to incorporate in soon.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix