In May, Christine Varney, the new antitrust chief at the Justice Department, promised to scrutinize high-tech mergers more closely than her Bush-era predecessors. In the early Obama administration, talk of a possible antitrust action has focused almost exclusively on Google. The latest example is this Sunday Times profile of the apple-cheeked Googler whose job it is to furiously spin decision makers on the idea that Google is not really so big after all. But that's not the only antitrust issue lurking. If the recession, the energy bill, the prospects for health care, and a dozen other stories weren't already dominating headlines, yesterday's news that the Justice Department is taking a closer look at Oracle's $7.4-billion purchase of Sun would be a really big deal.
The antitrust arguments against Google are fairly well known (I wrote about them in a Washington context here).
The Sun-Oracle dispute isn't nearly as familiar, partly, I suspect,
because it doesn't involve "consumer-facing technology" like Google,
partly because prominent Oracle execs don't pal around with the
president and assume high office in his administration, and partly
because there's only so much stuff the average person can keep track of
enough to care about. But given Oracle's importance, this story is
probably worth more ink and pixels than it's getting.
At issue is the question of competition in the software sphere. Sun is
primarily a hardware company, but its Java software competes directly
with Oracle's software. If Oracle's acquisition of Sun goes through,
Oracle will own Java and be in a position to favor its own technology
at Java's expense. The antitrust concern is that the software field
might then become too concentrated, limiting competition to the point
that Oracle has monopoly power. Yesterday, the Justice Department hit
the brakes on the deal by making a "second request" for information,
extending its initial investigation. A statement from one of Oracle's
attorneys indicates that concern over Java is indeed what Justice is taking a closer look at.
A second request does not mean that Justice will scotch the deal,
although it certainly could. Another possible outcome is that it might
impose conditions to ensure Java's continuing viability. But there's an
interesting backstory here, with all the elements of a classic
business-political drama, and I have to believe that under ordinary
circumstances it would get a lot more attention. Oracle is a
notoriously aggressive company. A few years ago, the Justice Department
tried to thwart its $7-billion hostile bid to buy rival PeopleSoft.
Oracle won. Java was at the heart of the last major tech-political
drama; it played a big part in the Justice Department's antitrust
action against Microsoft in the late 1990s. Here a big, aggressive
company with lofty ambitions is once again pitted against the Justice
Department, which is feeling more aggressive itself. It may not have
Google's star wattage, but the Oracle-Sun story should be an
interesting one to watch.







What? Exactly where does Java compete with Oracle's flagship relational database?
Sun owns MySQL, which is a relational database that competes with Oracle, but MySQL has nothing to do with Java.
Oracle makes a lot of other backend software that Sun owns companies that competes with, but Oracle doesn't have software that competes directly with Java. That doesn't make any sense.
Ah, at least you puzzled out that the comparison is between MySQL and the Oracle database!
Neither Oracle nor Sun can really "own" MySQL nor Java due to their open source nature, which the author should at least familiarize themselves with.
Hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)
and then click the "license" link for more information. The author is misinformed, needs better sources, or a fact checker with access to wikipedia. (Both Java and MySQL are GPL'd.)
What Oracle can acquire are the "dual distribution" rights for MySQL and Java, as well as the name brands. Dunno how much those are worth, tho.
Anyhow, it's better for Sun to end this way then to slowly keep dying.
Not only that, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of Oracle technologies are powered by Java. Hardly competing.
It’s not right to say that Java isn’t consumer facing. It’s actually running on about 3 billion cell phones. It’s also not right to say that Java competes with Oracle’s own software. On the contrary, Java is the foundation for almost everything Oracle sells (except its database). Oracle pays big license fees to Sun for the privilege of using Java. So do most of its major competitors (IBM, SAP, Red Hat…).
I think DoJ’s concern is that Oracle will use the tremendous trove of Java intellectual property it’s about to inherit from Sun (code, patents, trademarks, etc) to derail some of these competitors. Sun’s open sourcing of Java won’t prevent that, because Oracle will still control the Java standards process in addition to all the IP.
Despite all the talk about the new regime at DoJ, I’m willing to bet the Department’s action here is based purely on technical fundamentals, rather than reflecting some hidden political agenda of the Obama administration.
It's also not right to say Oracle execs don't hold positions in Obama's administration - Charles Phillips is on the Presidential Economic Recovery Advisory Board