Lots of new posts
I intend to make up for my recent lapse by posting the many interesting articles that have accumulated since then. Here is the first installment in this set.
Within the theme of "at some point in the future there will be only one software company" is ongoing coverage from CNET on the Oracle/PeopleSoft merger lawsuit. The latest article observes that challenges to governmental attempts to block mergers through antitrust legislation are very rare, and that there is a pretty good case to be made.
I can't imagine why the different cultures of the two companies make this a "landmark case" - so what if they have different cultures? That has absolutely no relevance. The point is whether or not Oracle merged with PeopleSoft would represent too strong an individual influence in the US business application software market.
Within the same theme is a NY lawsuit against Microsoft, one of the state-level suits that followed from the Justice Department's federal antitrust case. The content of the article is not significant - it is interesting merely to note ongoing efforts by consumers to protest the Microsoft monopoly through the court system.
Update: eWeek reports that IBM projects significant losses if the Oracle/PeopleSoft merger completes. The article seems to imply that this benefits Oracle because it means that the IBM witness will be perceived as biased against the merger, but it seems to me to increase the government's case - the loss is because IBM's database software doesn't work with Oracle's accounting and personnel software, but it does work with PeopleSoft's. A merger, then, would mean that it's likely the accouting and personnel software released by the new Oracle would not work with IBM's database software, and people formerly using the PeopleSoft software with IBM's would switch to using all Oracle software. This is exactly the sort of situation antitrust law tries to prevent.
Within the theme of "at some point in the future there will be only one software company" is ongoing coverage from CNET on the Oracle/PeopleSoft merger lawsuit. The latest article observes that challenges to governmental attempts to block mergers through antitrust legislation are very rare, and that there is a pretty good case to be made.
I can't imagine why the different cultures of the two companies make this a "landmark case" - so what if they have different cultures? That has absolutely no relevance. The point is whether or not Oracle merged with PeopleSoft would represent too strong an individual influence in the US business application software market.
Within the same theme is a NY lawsuit against Microsoft, one of the state-level suits that followed from the Justice Department's federal antitrust case. The content of the article is not significant - it is interesting merely to note ongoing efforts by consumers to protest the Microsoft monopoly through the court system.
Update: eWeek reports that IBM projects significant losses if the Oracle/PeopleSoft merger completes. The article seems to imply that this benefits Oracle because it means that the IBM witness will be perceived as biased against the merger, but it seems to me to increase the government's case - the loss is because IBM's database software doesn't work with Oracle's accounting and personnel software, but it does work with PeopleSoft's. A merger, then, would mean that it's likely the accouting and personnel software released by the new Oracle would not work with IBM's database software, and people formerly using the PeopleSoft software with IBM's would switch to using all Oracle software. This is exactly the sort of situation antitrust law tries to prevent.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home