EurActiv Logo
EU-Nachrichten & Politikdebatten
- durch Sprachenvielfalt -
Bulgaria News
Turkey News
Germany News
Spain News
France News
United Kingdom News
Poland News
Czech Republic News
Slovakia News
Hungary News
Romania News
Serbia News
Greece News
Italy News
Bulgaria Turkey Germany Spain France United Kingdom Poland Czech Republic Slovakia Hungary Romania Serbia Greece Italy
EurActiv.com Réseau

ALLE SEKTIONEN BROWSEN

Sehr geehrte Leserinnen und Leser!

Auf Grund des großen Erfolgs von EurActiv Deutschland findet die komplette deutschsprachige EU-Berichterstattung des EurActiv-Netzwerkes nun über Euractiv.de statt.

Die deutschsprachige Fassung von EurActiv.com wird nicht mehr aktualisiert, alle bisherigen übersetzten Texte bleiben aber im Archiv für Sie verfügbar.

Wir freuen uns, Sie künftig auf EurActiv.de begrüßen zu dürfen!

EU hält Einigung von Oracle und Sun für wettbewerbswidrig

Veröffentlicht 16. November 2009 - Aktualisiert 29. Januar 2010
Druckoptimierte VersionEinem Freund senden

Die Begründung von Oracle für seinen Kauf von Sun Microsystems hat die Europäische Kommission nicht überzeugt, die in einer am Sonntag (15. November) herausgegebenen Stellungnahme Einwände gegen die Einigung erhob.

The European Commission statement said that Oracle's purchase of Sun Microsystems would harm competition in the profitable database market, marking a departure in competition policy from the Securities and Exchange Commission in the US, which cleared the deal. 

The EU statement, which was reportedly issued by the executive's competition watchdog, concerns Oracle's acquisition of Sun's open source database, MySQL, which reaps about $300 million in revenue and could add to the buyer's leading Java software. 

The Commission has not confirmed whether it sent a letter to Oracle adding that, as a matter of course, it never comments on such statements. 

However, statements from Oracle and Sun appear to confirm the EU's objection to the deal. Oracle has said the EU's position represents "a profound misunderstanding of both database competition and open source dynamics". 

"It is well understood by those knowledgeable about open source software that because MySQL is open source, it cannot be controlled by anyone. That is the whole point of open source," Oracle said. 

The EU's probe does not spell the endgame for the deal, Sun has insisted, describing the statement as a "preparatory document". 

Antitrust lawyers working on the deal had also previously given assurances that the Commission's probe was not necessarily bad news for Oracle. 

The EU executive is following a different procedure to the Securities and Exchange Commission and could still come to the same conclusions, Christopher Thomas, an antitrust lawyer from the Lovells lawfirm said, commenting on the EU's initial probe in September (EurActiv 04/11/09). 

The US Department of Justice had approved the Oracle deal in August, declaring itself satisfied that there were enough, albeit smaller, competitors on the market and a large community of open source developers. 

Kroes has set January as the deadline for its final decision, putting the world's third-largest software maker, Oracle, months behind its original plan for closing the deal. 

Oracle, IBM and Microsoft are the main players in the proprietary database market, which is worth $19 billion a year. 

In contrast to MySQL, which is based on freely distributed code and used to run many Web sites, Oracle's database software runs corporate applications.

Michael Widenius, founder and original developer of MySQL, wrote on his blog that the European Commission was "absolutely right to be concerned" and called on Oracle "to be constructive and commit to sell MySQL to a suitable third party".

"Those who claim that MySQL's open source nature all by itself ensures competition ignore the fact that open source is just a distribution vehicle while MySQL depends on a company using the related intellectual property rights to generate revenues and fund further development," Widenius said. "Why would Sun have paid $1 billion for something that can be forked? Why doesn't Oracle just close the Sun deal quickly without MySQL and fork it if it's all that easy to do and it doesn't matter who owns the assets?"

Advertising